How many judgments cite Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT?

657 judgments on BharatTax cite Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (255 ITR 273), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 8D.

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 115JB Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 8D Section 92CA(3)Section 195

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)section 115ja book profits section 115j section 115jb section 35 disallowance u/s 14a disallowance under section 14a section 115 section 80ia section 32 section 14a

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

Jayant Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 731/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 730, 731 & 732/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 730, 731 & 732/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2012-13 M/s. Jayant Packaging Pvt. The DCIT, Ltd., v. Corporate Ward 2(2), A-12 & 13, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Chennai. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. PAN: AAACJ 1799A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क…

Jayant Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 730/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 730, 731 & 732/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 115JSection 14A

Jayant Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 732/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 730, 731 & 732/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 115JSection 14A

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 6730/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hat it is settled law that book profit shown by the assessee has to be as per the profit shown in the profit and loss account subject to only those adjustments as provided in the Act. As mandated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) no tinkering with the book profit as per profit and loss account is permitted otherwise than mandated by the provisions of the Act as contained in section 115JB of the Act. This is more so in rectification order passed. Hence, with the above observation this issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh and…

Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7388/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Section 115J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.7388/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) M/s Pawan Hans Ltd. Dy. CIT, Corporate Office, Circle-19(2), Safdarjung Airport, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACP 1561A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ved Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement 18.03.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Lear…

Secunderabad Hotels Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1770/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri M. Mahidhar, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 40

…ITA No 1770 of 2018 Secunderabad Hotels P Ltd Secunderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Secunderabad Hotels (P) Vs. ITO Ltd, Seunderabad Ward 3(4) PAN:AAICS6896B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Sri M. Mahidhar, DR Date of hearing: 25/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 03/03/2021 ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2013-14 against the o…

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…account, then neither the Assessing 30 M/s. Batliboi Limited Officer nor the assessee can tinker with such profit & loss account. In support of it, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562 (SC) . The assessee is required to prepare its Profit &Loss account as per part II & III of VIth Schedule of the Companies Act and here in this case assessee did prepared its Profit &Loss account as per the requirement of the Companies Act and therefore, said Profit &Loss account cannot be disturbed while computing the book profit…

Trc Engineering India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 499/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anil Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…uce by Rs.62,60,285/- from Rs.2,81,34,070/- as per the return to Rs.2,18,73,780/-. However, as the accounts have been laid before the shareholder and approved, there will be no change to the book profit in terms of the SC decision in Apollo Tyres Cases (2002) 122 Taxmann 562 and the tax which is now being paid under Section 115JB will remain the same. Only the computation of MAT credit carried forward for set off would change from Rs.34,37,847/- to Rs.54,68,998/-. The claim is the line with AS-11 of the Companies (Accounting Standards)Rules, 2006 and Income Disclosures Standard No.VI “Relating to the Effects of C…

M/S Kilara Power Pvt. Ltd vs. The Income -Tax Officer

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/356/2014HC Karnataka04 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 260Section 260ASection 41(1)

…rgued that unless clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JKB of the Act is attracted, the reduction under clause (i) cannot be applied. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on APOLLO TYRES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 255 ITR 273 (SC), and 'INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', 330 ITR 363. 9 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The relevant extract of Section 115JB, which deals with special provisions for payment of tax by certain companies as it was in existence a…

DCIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…ew industries for industrial growth of industrially non- developed area. 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 (I) Ltd vs. CIT (330 ITR 363) further held that, the object of MAT provisio…

M/S. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1271/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

…T (A), it is held that the sale of carbon credit is chargeable u/s 115JB of the Act since the assessee has credited the same in the profit and loss account. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Appollo Tyres v. CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 to support his contention. 9.4. Ld.AR at the outset, submitted that a capital receipt does not fall within the definition of 'income' u/s 2(24) of the Act unless specifically included. A receipt which is not of the character of income, cannot be included for the purpose of computing Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act even if the same is credited to…

M/S. Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1270/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Gokaldas Images Pvt.Ltd

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/77/2015HC Karnataka02 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(45)Section 260Section 260ASection 709(1)

…ompany 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 Asses…

M/S. Ester Industries Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part but for statistical purposes

ITA 1138/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyester Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Block A, Plot No. 11, New Delhi Infocity-1, Sector-33 & 34, Gurugaon.

For Appellant: Sh. R. Santhanam, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘Friday/B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ester Industries Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Block A, Plot No. 11, New Delhi Infocity-1, Sector-33 & 34, Gurugaon. PAN : AAACE0119K Appellant Respondent Assessee by :Sh. R. Santhanam, Adv. Revenue by :Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 16.10.2020 Pronouncement on : 21.10.2020 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHAR Y, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 14/11/2014 in appeal No. 43/10-11, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V,…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 12 (1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4261/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Singh, CIT, DR

…e share premium account in any earlier year, and in that view of the matter, the adjustment to the book profit by way of reversal of share premium account is not in order. (e) I also agree that the ratio of the citation in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs ClT 255 ITR 273 (SC), which states that the AO does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the P & L a/c except to the extent provided in the Explanation to section 115J, covers the instant issue in appeal.. When the P & L a/c has been certified by the auditors of the company and the accounts have been prepared in accordance with Part-II…

M/S. Mac Industries, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Vapi

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

ITA 1036/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…he head 'profits and gains of business or profession' may be computed with reference to income falling under the heads of income such as income from other sources. 7. He referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/ 122 Taxman 562 submits that as to which item of income should. be taken into account for computing the quantum of deduction depends upon the statutory provision allowing the deduction. 8. He submits further that the appellants in making its computation proceeded on the basis of Explanation 3 to Section 40(b)(v) which view, was correct one to tak…

Ifci Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2982/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2982/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 IFCI Ltd., Vs. DCIT, IFCI Tower, 61-Nehru Circle-12(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACT0668G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Respondent by Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 24.09.2020 Date of pronouncement 08.10.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 16/02/2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, New Delhi [in short ‘the…

Vedanta Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

ITA 12/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153

…vehemently stated that the provisions of MAT are a separate code in itself and the powers of the Assessing Officer therein are extremely limited. 129. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd 255 ITR 273. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that once the accounts of the company are examined and certified as complying with mandatory requirements of the Companies Act by the statutory auditors, the company in its AGM and ROC, the Assessing Officer cannot tinker with and make adjustments to the same for the purposes of computing book…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alstom India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, assessee’s cross objection is dismissed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1727/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna &For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 DCIT – 1(1)(1), vs. M/s. Alstom India Ltd., Mumbai. (Appellant) (Formerly Alstom Project India Ltd.) The International, 5th floor, 16, New Marine Lines, Off M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AABCA8679F (Respondent) CO NO. 71/MUM/2015 : A.Y : 2010-11 (in ITA NO. 1727/MUM/2015) M/s. Alstom India Ltd., vs. ITO – 1(1)(1), The International, 5th floor, 16, Mumbai. (Respondent/ New Marine Lines, Off M.K. Road, Orig. Appellant) Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AABCA867…

M/S. Ifci Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2473/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14Section 143Section 43B

…accounts as per the companies act and such provisions are required to be made in accordance with schedule VI of the companies act. Assessee relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Apollo tyres Ltd versus Commissioner of income tax 255 ITR 273 stating that the AO has Page 13 of 43 only the power of examining whether the books of accounts certified by the authorities Under the Companies act and having been properly maintained in accordance with the companies act. Therefore, assessee submitted that AO does not have any authority to adjust the book profit on this account. The learned ass…