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

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Engineering & Electronics Ltd. (Formerly Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6412/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5242/Mum/2017 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Blue Star Engineering & Income Tax-1(1)(1), Electronics Ltd. 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. (Formerly M/S Blue Star Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Electro Mechanical Limited) Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Vs. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecb1558M

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…VI to the Companies Act, 1956 in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forever Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1609 of 2013) delivered on 12.08.2015 and by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT 255 ITR 273 (SC)?” 12. Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has made claim of exclusion of amortization of intangible assets, including goodwill, fee paid to consultants and expenses incurred for acquisition of business of DC Gupta construction Pvt. Ltd while computing book profit under s…

Harshit Finlease & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4991/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…ee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. 27. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC), which was duly followed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Adbhut Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., 338 ITR 94 (Bom) for the proposition that the 17 M/s. Harshit Finlease & Investments Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4989 & 4991/Mum/2011 Assessing Officer cannot tinker with the book profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account which is du…

Harshit Finlease & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4989/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…ee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. 27. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC), which was duly followed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Adbhut Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., 338 ITR 94 (Bom) for the proposition that the 17 M/s. Harshit Finlease & Investments Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4989 & 4991/Mum/2011 Assessing Officer cannot tinker with the book profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account which is du…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 147/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &
Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…the nature of income and, therefore, such amounts cannot form part of the profit reflecting real working results. While rendering the above decisions, the Hon'ble Tribunal has referred to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres -vs.- CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) and held that the above decision does not debar the assessee to make the above adjustment in computing Book Profit u/s 115JA/JB. 31. The CIT(A) agreed with the contentions put forth by the assessee. On the admission of the additional ground, the CIT(A) was of the view that the facts to decide the additional ground were already available on r…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 109/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &
Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…the nature of income and, therefore, such amounts cannot form part of the profit reflecting real working results. While rendering the above decisions, the Hon'ble Tribunal has referred to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres -vs.- CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) and held that the above decision does not debar the assessee to make the above adjustment in computing Book Profit u/s 115JA/JB. 31. The CIT(A) agreed with the contentions put forth by the assessee. On the admission of the additional ground, the CIT(A) was of the view that the facts to decide the additional ground were already available on r…

JCIT (OSD) Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Ti Financial Holdings Limited, Chennai

ITA 1974/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1974/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Ti Financial Holdings Limited, Income Tax (Osd), Vs. Date House, No. 234, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Room No. Nsc Bose Road, 711, 7Th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, No. Chennai 600 001. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 34. [Pan:Aaact1249H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 21.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Recomputed The Disallowance Under Section 14A To The Extent Of Investments Which Yield Exempt Income During The Year Under Consideration & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The 2

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…er, in the instant case of the assessee, since we have already deleted the addition made U/s.14A, increasing the book profit will not arise. Further the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the assessee in the case M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 is also squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. The gist of the same is reproduced herein below for reference:- “The Assessing Officer, while computing the book profits of a company under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Compa…

The ACIT, - 4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Yash Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 40

…which permits the AO to make any addition and to add under this clause. The ground raised by the AO is therefore patently wrong. 25. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on following judgments; (i) Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 255 ITR 273. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Binani Cement Ltd. reported in 95 CCH 0186. (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. reported in 76 CCH 1111 ISCC (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Adbhut Trading Co. (P) Ltd. reported in 79 CCH 0553 MumHC (v) Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3805/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 80HSection 80I

…applying the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 22.2 The Assessing Officer held that adjustment can be made only as provided in Explanation to section 115J as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo tyres Vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). According to him, exclusion of DTAA is not provided in that explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 22.3 Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2000-…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 705/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2002-2003

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

Section 80HSection 80I

…applying the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 22.2 The Assessing Officer held that adjustment can be made only as provided in Explanation to section 115J as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo tyres Vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). According to him, exclusion of DTAA is not provided in that explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 22.3 Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2000-…

DCIT, Circle-11(1) vs. Ircon International Ltd

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2234/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

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

Section 80HSection 80I

…applying the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 22.2 The Assessing Officer held that adjustment can be made only as provided in Explanation to section 115J as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo tyres Vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). According to him, exclusion of DTAA is not provided in that explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 22.3 Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2000-…

Ircon International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3804/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 80HSection 80I

…applying the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 22.2 The Assessing Officer held that adjustment can be made only as provided in Explanation to section 115J as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo tyres Vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). According to him, exclusion of DTAA is not provided in that explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 22.3 Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2000-…

Ircon International Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-11

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1825/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

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

Section 80HSection 80I

…applying the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 22.2 The Assessing Officer held that adjustment can be made only as provided in Explanation to section 115J as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo tyres Vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). According to him, exclusion of DTAA is not provided in that explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 22.3 Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2000-…

Agila Specialties Private Limited(Now Merged With Mylan Laboratories Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 987/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Agila Specialities Private Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-16(2), (Now Merged With Mylan 2Nd Floor, B-Block, Laboratories Limited) Income Tax Towers, Plot No. 564/A/22, Road Masabtank, No. 92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 004. Hyderabad, Telangana-34. Pan: Aaacq 1091 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Sharath Rao Revenue By: Smt. Nivedita Biswas-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri Sharath RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…se. However, in the instant case of the assessee, since we have already deleted the addition made U/s. 14A, increasing the book profit will not arise. Further the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the assessee in the case Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562 is also squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. The gist of the same is reproduced herein below for reference:— "The Assessing Officer, while computing the book profits of a company under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Cooper Standard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 609/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 609/Del./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S Cooper Standard India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-6(2), (Formerly Known As Metzeler New Delhi Automative Profiles India Ltd.), 301- 302, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw0019N Co No. 47/Del./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Cooper Standard India Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd., (Formerly Known As Metzeler Income Tax, Circle-6(2), Automative Profiles India Ltd.), New Delhi 301-302, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw0019N Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2019

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 72Section 79

…115JB is a self contained code. Sub section (1) lays down the manner in which the income tax is payable is to be computed. In this connection we also invite your attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. \/s. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 where the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. has clearly mentioned that "There cannot be two incomes one for the purpose of Companies Act and another for the purpose of income tax both maintained under the same Act. If the legislature intended the assessing officer to reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section…

Prasad Agents P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4344/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodprasad Agents Private Limited Acit-3(2)(2) 46, Jolly Maker Chamber, Ii, Mumbai 225, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Jokhakar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bohra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 1I

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.4344/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Prasad Agents Private Limited Vs. ACIT-3(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Prasad Agents Private Limited ACIT-3(2)(2) 46, Jolly Maker Chamber, II, Mumbai 225, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 PAN – AAACP3530D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Divya Jokhakar, A.R Respondent by: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bohra, D.R Date of Hearing: 03.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 23.10.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is d…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1589/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…of the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act, we note that there is no adjustment on account of prior period expenses. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo tyres ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 wherein it was held as under: “Therefore, the Assessing Officer while computing the income under section 115J has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter has limited p…

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…of the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act, we note that there is no adjustment on account of prior period expenses. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo tyres ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 wherein it was held as under: “Therefore, the Assessing Officer while computing the income under section 115J has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter has limited p…

Allied Digital Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4232/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, D.R
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 14A

…no other additions can be made by the AO, once book of accounts are audited and approved by the shareholders in the annual general meeting. In this regard, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT 255 ITR 273. As regards, disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income it was submitted that its own funds in form of share capital as well as reserves are in excess of investments made in shares, which yield exempt income and accordingly, no disallowance can be made in respect of interest disallowances. In this regard, the assessee has r…

Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 788/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…" of the company. Since, in the present case, the subsidy has been credited to P& L a/c, in order to work out the real profit of the company u/s 115JB said amount needs to be deducted, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) rw Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT(2011) 330 ITR 363(SC). The appellant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investments CO.(P) Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 597(BOM), although the copy of judgment in this case was not furnished. The reliance on the decision by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court by the appellant is found to…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1143/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…" of the company. Since, in the present case, the subsidy has been credited to P& L a/c, in order to work out the real profit of the company u/s 115JB said amount needs to be deducted, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) rw Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT(2011) 330 ITR 363(SC). The appellant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investments CO.(P) Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 597(BOM), although the copy of judgment in this case was not furnished. The reliance on the decision by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court by the appellant is found to…