ITO WD 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. HEXAGAON NUTRITION P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB(6) prevails over the amended Explanation 1 to Section 115JB, thus excluding SEZ unit income from book profit tax. This decision followed previous Tribunal rulings on the matter.
What were the facts?
The Revenue disallowed the assessee's claim for exclusion of SEZ unit profits from book profit computation under Section 115JB. The assessee contended that Section 115JB(6) exempts SEZ unit income from book profit tax.
What were the issues?
Whether income of an SEZ unit is exigible to book profit tax under Section 115JB, despite being otherwise exempt under Section 10A.
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.
- Genesys International Corpn. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT4 citing55 SOT 10 · 2013 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 07.8.2014, partly allowing the Assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12 vide order dated 21.2.2014.
The issue arising in the instant appeal is the exigibility to tax under book profit tax u/s. 115JB of the Act of the income of the assessee’s SEZ Unit; the income there- from being otherwise exempt under Chapter III of this Act.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITO vs. Hexagaon Nutrition Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee derives income from its’, as stated, sole Unit located in MEPZ-SEZ, Tamharam, Chennai. The Revenue disallows the assessee’s claim for exclusion of the profit of its said unit in the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act on the basis that the same, exempt u/s. 10A, would nevertheless stand to be included therein in view of the amendment to clauses (f) and (ii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.4.2008, i.e., A.Y. 2008-09 onwards, omitting the words ‘section 10A or section 10-B’ there-from. The basis of the assessee’s claims is that its Unit is a SEZ unit, so that profit thereof would stand to be excluded from book profit tax (Minimum Alternate Tax – MAT) provisions by virtue of section 115JB(6), which reads as under: ‘Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. 115JB. (6) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the income accrued or arising on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered, by an entrepreneur or a Developer, in a Unit or Special Economic Zone, as the case may be. Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall cease to have effect in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2012.’ The Tribunal, following its’ decision in Genesys International Corpn. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT [2013] 55 SOT 10 (Mum), allowed relief to the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 (in dated 08.5.2015/copy on record). The tribunal, in the case of Genesys International Corpn. Ltd. (supra), after analyzing the relevant provisions, held that even though clauses (f) and (ii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB stand since amended, i.e., w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09, the provision of section 115JB(6), brought on statute w.e.f. 01.4.2005, i.e., by Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 w.e.f. 10/2/2006, shall prevail, excluding the income of a SEZ unit from book- profit tax. That the income is otherwise exempt u/s. 10A (or for that matter section (A.Y. 2011-12) ITO vs. Hexagaon Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. 10B), it opined, is of no consequence. The tribunal, in arriving at its’ decision, also examined the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, also noting that the exception to the SEZ Units stands since withdrawn by proviso to s. 115-JB (6) with effect from assessment year commencing 01/4/2012 onwards. Reference in this regard be made to paras 21 & 22 of the order. No contrary decision by a higher court or, in fact, even by the tribunal, has been brought on record by the Revenue, despite the ld. DR seeking time for the purpose. We, therefore, according due deference to the said decisions by the tribunal, direct likewise, upholding the assessee’s claim. We decide accordingly.
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 →- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026