Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

255 ITR 273Supreme Court of India2002#88 most cited

What is Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115J, arrears of depreciation, including those arising from assets working extra shifts, are a necessary charge on profits if debited to the profit and loss account and are allowable as such.

657

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,714 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Apollo Tyres Ltd v CIT · Section 115J · Section 115JB · book profits · minimum alternate tax · MAT · depreciation arrears · extra shift depreciation · debit to profit and loss account · allowable charge on profits

Also reported as

122 Taxmann 562174 CTR 521

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(2), Vs. M/S Hikal Ltd Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 717/718, Maker Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers V, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0383A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.Cit Dr Respondent By : Sri.Sanjay Parikh.Ar Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.CIT DRFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Parikh.AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 154

…facts that the said income had been added to the book profit by the Hikal Ltd.Mumbai. assessee itself and the deduction/adjustment to book profit allowed does not fulfill the conditions laid down in explanation 1 of section 115JB-Apollo Tyre Ltd. Vs CIT (SC), 255 ITR 273. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,23,15,159/- to the book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of notional & unrealized income without appreciating the facts that assessing officer rectified the mistake apparent from record as assessee is not…

ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4485/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…115JB of the Act and is therefore in contravention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under co…

ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4484/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…115JB of the Act and is therefore in contravention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under co…

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, C--2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4293/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…115JB of the Act and is therefore in contravention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under co…

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, C--2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4291/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…115JB of the Act and is therefore in contravention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the vention to the law laid down by HonTDle Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT(255 ITR 273)?" 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during facts of the case are that the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under consideration was engaged in the business of the year under co…