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 367,518 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

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…planation 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. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 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.” 40. We, therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referre…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. T. Stanes & Company Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 888/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 115J

…ed Form No.29B i.e. report u/s.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for computing the book profit of the company as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT reported in 262 ITR 330. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd reported in 305 ITR 409 held that the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the net profit as shown in the P & L account which is prepared in accordance with Parts…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. T.Stanes and Company Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 115J

…ed Form No.29B i.e. report u/s.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for computing the book profit of the company as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT reported in 262 ITR 330. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd reported in 305 ITR 409 held that the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the net profit as shown in the P & L account which is prepared in accordance with Parts…

Jm Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R
Section 14A

…AT Mum.) 5. Shree Capital Services Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009) 121 ITD 498 (Kol. ITAT) (SB) 6. C. Bharath Kumar vs. DCIT (2005) 4 SOT 593 (Bang.) (ITAT) 7. DCIT vs. Sski Investors Services (P) Ltd. – (2008) 113 TTJ 511 (ITAT)(Mum) 8. Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC)” 20. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee is in the business of cash future arbitrage. The assessee takes benefit in the price difference in the two different market/segments. The assessee in his business buys a particular scrip in the cash segment and simultaneously sells the same scrip in th…

M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6165/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Deputy M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., 204, Commissioner Of Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacp0182F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/09/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1.0 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.4.45.076/- U/S.40A(3Ijof The Income-Tax Act, On Wholly Untenable Grounds. 1.1 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Circumstances Under Which The Cash Payment Exceeding The Prescribed Limit U/S.40A(3) Had To Be Made By The Assessee, Although The Payees Were Fully Identified & Even Tds Has Been Made. 1.2 That The Disallowance Made U/S.40A(3) Is Bad In Law.

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…tted that in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT 245 ITR 428, it is held that provision for leave encashment represented ascertained liability. He further submitted that in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT 255 ITR 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that MAT provisions are a complete code in itself and the book profits as approved by the board of directors is required to be adopted for the purpose of computing book profit as per the Income Tax Act and only such adjustments are required to be made as specifically governed by the provisions of the Act. He prayed…

Procon Instrumentation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1648/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 148Section 54E

…te the Profit and Loss Account and included profit on sale of land for the purpose of calculation of Book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of coordinate bench and Apex Court decision of Apollo Tyres Vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) were held that the Assessing Officer does not have power to make changes and recast the financial were as the Ld. AO has unilaterally dealt on the issue overlooking the judicial decisions. The Ld. AR also supported his submissions with the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Thambi Modern Spinning Mills Ltd., ITA No. 765/…

Torm Shipping India P.Ltd ( Formerly Known As Orinoco Marine Consultancy India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 1272/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)

…cannot make any additions or deletions to the book profit other than those specifically mentioned in the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act. 5.14 Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273) (Refer 176- 186 of the compilation) wherein the Apex Court has held : ----- We notice that the use of the words "in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act' was made for the limited purpose of empowering the assessing authority to rely upon the authentic statement of accounts of the company. Therefo…

M/S. Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1255/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiagilent Technologies Acit, (International) Pvt. Ltd, Circle-1, Vs. Plot No.-Cp-11, Sector-8, Gurgaon Imt Mangsar, Gurgaon Pan: Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Kanchan KaushalFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92

…further stated that the Ld. assessing officer has not mentioned any of the clauses of the exploration under which he is making such a an adjustment. He further submitted that Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Apollo tyres Ltd versus Commissioner of income tax 255 ITR 273 has held that addition or deletions to book profit under section 115 JB of the income tax act shall be restricted to those specified under explanation 1 to that section and the assessing officer is not authorized to make additions beyond those as mentioned in the said explanation. He further stated that that identical issue has been dealt with by…

M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 718/CHNY/2011[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.718/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner of No.1, Sai Flats, v. Income Tax, No.55, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Company Circle VI(4), Kanagam, Tharamani, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 113. PAN : AABCS 4955 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1008…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sterlite Industries Ltd., Tuticorin

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/CHNY/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.718/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner of No.1, Sai Flats, v. Income Tax, No.55, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Company Circle VI(4), Kanagam, Tharamani, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 113. PAN : AABCS 4955 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1008…

Wadinar Power Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 131/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vadinar Power Company Ltd. Additional Cit-5(3) 5Th Floor, Tower-Ii, Equinox Aayakar Bhavan Business Park, Off Bandra Kurla Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Complex, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W) Mumbai 400070 Pan - Aaacv5226C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…. Ltd. reported in 249 ITR 597 (Bom) and Kopran Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (119 ITD 355) (Mumbai ITAT) are factually different and do not apply to the assessee’s case. It is argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2002) (255 ITR 273) (SC) supports the assessee in the case on hand and has laid down the basic principle that while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act, the AO has only the power of examining whether the books of accounts are certified by the concerned authorities, as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act and thereaf…

Binani Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT-CC-Xxviii, Kolkata

ITA 2176/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the instant case of the assessee, since we have already deleted the addition made U/s. 14A, the question of 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…

D.C.I.T. Cir - 1/Kol., Kolkata vs. M/S Avery India Ltd., Haryana

ITA 1825/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Jm] Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Kasat,CA & Shri Manish Sheth, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…adjustment (plus or minus) for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s.115JB is limited to the specific items as specified in Explanation below second proviso 10 section 115JB. As decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Appolo Tyre Ltd vs. CIT (255 ITR 273), no adjustment other than what has been specified in explanation below second proviso to section 115JB is' allowable for the purpose of computation of book profit. This is how it is seen that book profit chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for RS.51,48,511/- (as d…

Avery India Ltd., Haryana vs. A.C.I.T. Cir - 1, Kol, Kolkata

ITA 1812/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Jm] Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Kasat,CA & Shri Manish Sheth, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…adjustment (plus or minus) for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s.115JB is limited to the specific items as specified in Explanation below second proviso 10 section 115JB. As decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Appolo Tyre Ltd vs. CIT (255 ITR 273), no adjustment other than what has been specified in explanation below second proviso to section 115JB is' allowable for the purpose of computation of book profit. This is how it is seen that book profit chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for RS.51,48,511/- (as d…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2673/Del/2011 (Assessment Year …2002-03) DCIT, Circle 11(1), Vs. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. New Delhi 903, Mohandev Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. GIR / PAN :AAACI-1530L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT DR Respondent by :Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rophit Jain, Avd. And Ms. Deepashree Rao, CA Date of hearing: 29.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 411/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 147

…of Gujarat High Court, according to the Ld. representative, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without disposing of the objection cannot stand in the eye of law. 6. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (20020 255 ITR 273, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee was expected to compute the book profit under Section 115JB(2) of the Act under Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. Once the book profit is computed as per the provisions of Companies Act and certified by the auditor, the Assessing Officer cannot go bey…

Abhayam Trading Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 410/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.410 & 411/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Abhayam Trading Limited (Formerly Known As Apple Credit The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited), V. Income Tax, No.2, Gokul Arcade, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(1), Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacca 2996 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Koteswara Rao, CIT
Section 115JSection 147

…of Gujarat High Court, according to the Ld. representative, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without disposing of the objection cannot stand in the eye of law. 6. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (20020 255 ITR 273, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee was expected to compute the book profit under Section 115JB(2) of the Act under Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. Once the book profit is computed as per the provisions of Companies Act and certified by the auditor, the Assessing Officer cannot go bey…

M/S. Saint Gobain Glass India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 2096/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 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…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. J.B Mangharam Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed but that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1456/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. J.B. Mangharam Foods Acit Cir 4(2), Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 D/1, 502 Krishna Kaveri C.H.S, Vs. Yamuna Nagar, Andheri – West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj1657R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cir 4(2), M/S. J.B. Mangharam Foods Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, D/1, 502 Krishna Kaveri C.H.S, Vs. M.K. Road, Yamuna Nagar, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj1657R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip S. Damle, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Patnade, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…g Officer can increase the net profits as reflected in the profit and loss account prepared under Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 only to the extent that is permissible in the Explanation noted above. Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC) and CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 409 (SC). Clause ( c) of Explanation (1) deals with "the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities". 15. In response to the notice for re-opening of the assessment, the assessee, in the course of its objections pointe…

Rahil Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

ITA 4002/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 10Section 115J

…al gains earned by the partnership firm as income of the assessee while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 4. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) and the decision rendered in the case of Malayala Manorama Ltd (300 ITR 251) to contend that the accounts adopted in the Annual General Meeting should not be 3 M/s. Rahil Impex Pvt. Ltd. disturbed by the AO. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed the view in the case of Dynamic Orthopaedic (190 Taxman 288)(SC) that…