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 367,735 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

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147Section 8DSection 92CA(3)Section 195
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)section 115jabook profitssection 115jsection 115jbsection 35disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 115section 80iasection 32section 14a

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

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

ITA 1980/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Symphony Teleca Addl. CIT Corporation India Private Ltd.) Range-12 No.3 & 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area (currently with ACIT Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Vs. Circle-3(1)(2)) Village Bangalore Krishnarajapuram Hobli B…

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Abs Tower, Old Circle 1(1)(1), Padra Road, Baroda-390007 Baroda Pan : Aaacg 6725 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 8D(2)(i)

…withExplanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that "the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J." The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue." 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent before us - one from Hon’b…

Ap. State Seeds Development Corporation, Hyd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyd

ITTA/232/2006HC Telangana21 Dec 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

For Appellant: SRl. C. P. RAMASWAMIFor Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATACHOUDARY SENIOR SC FOR
Section 1Section 115JSection 260A

…04. This being the treatment glen by the assessee as per Part II and III of Schedule Vl of the Companies Act, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee's case is squareiy covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT 255 ITR 273 (SC). We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the assessee and uphold the order ofthe ld. CIT [A). 9. Thus, Tribuna-l held that appellant had adjusted prior period of expenses of Rs.3,09,504.00 from the net profit Iigure of Rs.3,42,726.OO to arrive at the figure of Rs.33,222.00 as the net prolit which according to the appellant should…

Greenlam Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

…rom the computation of book profit. The relevant findings are as follows: 45. Now coming to the issue relating to treatment of these subsidies while computing book profit u/s 115JB, we note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) held that the AO has the power to rework the book profit if the profits are computed not in accordance with Part II and Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their subsequent decision rendered in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (!) Ltd vs. CIT (330 ITR 363) further held that, the object of MAT provisio…

Sambros Tex Global Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle I, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathyanarayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…t is not to be reckoned while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB, for it is not an eligible item covered by the said 17 adjustments prescribed in the said Explanation. 7.2 The decisions relied upon by the appellant in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 and Malayala Manorama Co Ltd., in Appeal Civil No.5420-5423 of 2022 in [2008 TIOL-77-SC] will not come to the rescue of the appellant as the facts are distinguishable inasmuch as that the AO had not interfered with the Profit & Loss account for the relevant previous year under consideration and has only gone by the present provisions of Section 1…

M/S. Kavithalayaa Productions (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-19(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 58/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P.M.Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115J

…o Sec.115JB of the Act, provides for certain positive and negative :: 5 :: adjustments. It is a well settled principle of law by the decision of various courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Apollo Tyres Ltd., reported in [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC) that if financial statements are prepared in accordance with the provisions Part-II & III of Schedule-VI of Companies Act, 1956 and approved by the shareholders in the AGM, then the AO’s power is limited to make adjustments to book profit qua the items provided in Explanation (1) to Sec.115JB of the Act. In other words, if accounts are p…

Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 200/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 92C

…ing a company is liable to tax on book profits in accordance with the aforesaid provision and there is no exemption granted to the non dividend company in this regard. However, the tribunal by placing reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in APOLLO TYRES, 255 ITR 273 (SC) has held that Assessing Officer while determining book profits under Section 115JB of the Act cannot tamper with the profits as per profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act except in the manner provided in Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. Thus, it has been held that the additions made by the Assessing O…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…income under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 90. While deciding the aforesaid question in favour of taxpayer, the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court after taking into consideration the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd vs CIT, [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC), observed as under: ―26. Now the second issue which requires adjudication is as to whether the aforesaid incentive subsidies received by the assessee from the Government of `Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ITA No.7287/Mum./2018 West Bengal under the schemes in question are to be included for the purpose of computation of book profit under Section…

Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited…....................................Appellant [PAN: AABCB 2075 J] Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata….........…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited…....................................Appellant [PAN: AABCB 2075 J] Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata….........…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited…....................................Appellant [PAN: AABCB 2075 J] Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata….........…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited…....................................Appellant [PAN: AABCB 2075 J] Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata.....................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata….........…

Soma Enterprise Limited, Hyderabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1145/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…

Soma Enterprise Limited, Hyderabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2016-2017
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…

Soma Enterprise Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1143/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1142/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telagana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1138/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-2011
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

…he Act and he cannot tinker with the audited accounts of the assessee which had been approved by the shareholders in Annual General Meeting. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). Hence we hold that the ld. AO had correctly followed the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd referred supra. Hence there cannot be any addition to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in respect of alleged non- genuine purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the rev…