THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED BREWEIES LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. This was due to a retrospective amendment to Section 115JA of the Act, which necessitated a fresh consideration of the issues.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2004-05. The appeal involved questions regarding the addition of provisions for idle assets and doubtful debts/advances when computing profits under Section 115JB.
What were the issues?
Whether provisions for idle assets and doubtful debts/advances were correctly added back for Section 115JB computation, and the impact of a retrospective amendment on the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.118 citing305 ITR 409 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JUNE, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
I.T.A. NO.476/2009
BETWEEN :
The Commissioner of Income-Tax C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore
The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-2(3) C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore
..Appellants (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Adv.,)
AND :
M/s. United Breweries Ltd., UB Towers, Level-4, UB City 24, Vittal Malya Road Bangalore
..Respondent (By Sri S. Parthasarathi, Adv.,)
- 2 -
This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 01.04.2009 passed in ITA No.705/Bang/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Income-Tax Appellant Tribunal, Bangalore.
This appeal coming on for hearing, this day, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J., delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated 1.4.2009 passed in ITA.No.705/Bang/2008 in respect of the assessment year 2004-05.
While admitting the appeal the following questions of law were framed on 6.10.2009:-
i) Whether the provision for idle assets of Rs.33,54,367/- was correctly added back by the Assessing Officer when computing profits under Section
- 3 -
115JB of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) as was done by the assessee when computing the regular profits under the Act?
ii) Whether the provisions for doubtful debts of Rs.51,93,861/- and provision for doubtful advances of Rs.35,52,387/- was correctly added back by the Assessing Officer when computing profits under Section 115JB of the Act as was done by the assessee when computing the regular profits under the Act?
iii) Whether the amendment by Finance Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001 by insertion of Explanation to Clause (g) to sub- Section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act, the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. HCL Comment Systems - 305 ITR 409, would not be applicable to the current assessment year 2004- 05 and the additions made by the
- 4 -
Assessing Officer in computing profits under Section 115JB of the Act would be correct?
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that Section 115JA of the Act, has been amended vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and the amendment may have some bearing on the decision of the issues framed in this appeal. In view of the retrospective amendment to Section 115JA of the Act, the Tribunal has to reconsider the matter afresh.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- assessee does not dispute the statement made by the learned counsel for the Revenue and he also agreed for remanding the matter to the Tribunal for decision on the issue referred to above, in the light of retrospective amendment to Section 115JA of the Act.
In the circumstances, we pass the following order:-
- 5 -
The order dated 1.4.2009 passed in ITA.No.705/Bang/2008 in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh and pass order on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
*ck/-
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026