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

Munchener Ruckversicherungs -Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in Munchen, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4832/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala / Jeet Kamdar
Section 37Section 40Section 44CSection 9(1)(vii)

…unexpired risk and no adjustment is permitted to such profits other than those listed in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC). 12. We further find that the premium deficiency of Rs 773000 has been allowed by the ld. AO under the normal provisions of the Act but the same has been added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. As stated supra, this is not an item contemplated to be added in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the r…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1024/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sweety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 35A

…CII (A) has erred in allowing the addition of final account & book profit after the financial accounts were audited and finalized and signed on 27.08.2013 and approved, in the continuation of Decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. 122 Taxmann 562. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting an perverse claim that during the finalization of accounts, it came to the notice of the company that sale has been purportedly recognized because if it was noticed during Page 2 of 21 ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd f…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7844/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263Section 35A

…CII (A) has erred in allowing the addition of final account & book profit after the financial accounts were audited and finalized and signed on 27.08.2013 and approved, in the continuation of Decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. 122 Taxmann 562. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting an perverse claim that during the finalization of accounts, it came to the notice of the company that sale has been purportedly recognized because if it was noticed during finalization on 27.08.2013, it would not have been approved ard signed by all the parties including auditor & board of directors…

M/S. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Baroda

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 784/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…the Co-ordinate Bench had already decided that the sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt and, therefore, should not be included in the book profit. The AO’s action of adding it back was incorrect as per Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), which held that the AO has no power to alter the book profits unless the accounts are not prepared as per the Companies Act. 13.2. The AR submitted that the assessee is a public company, and its Profit & Loss Account is prepared in accordance with Part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. There was no allegation that the acc…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Vadodara vs. M/S. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1383/AHD/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…the Co-ordinate Bench had already decided that the sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt and, therefore, should not be included in the book profit. The AO’s action of adding it back was incorrect as per Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), which held that the AO has no power to alter the book profits unless the accounts are not prepared as per the Companies Act. 13.2. The AR submitted that the assessee is a public company, and its Profit & Loss Account is prepared in accordance with Part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. There was no allegation that the acc…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Vadodara vs. M/S. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1382/AHD/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…the Co-ordinate Bench had already decided that the sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt and, therefore, should not be included in the book profit. The AO’s action of adding it back was incorrect as per Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), which held that the AO has no power to alter the book profits unless the accounts are not prepared as per the Companies Act. 13.2. The AR submitted that the assessee is a public company, and its Profit & Loss Account is prepared in accordance with Part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. There was no allegation that the acc…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Vadodara vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1619/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…the Co-ordinate Bench had already decided that the sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt and, therefore, should not be included in the book profit. The AO’s action of adding it back was incorrect as per Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), which held that the AO has no power to alter the book profits unless the accounts are not prepared as per the Companies Act. 13.2. The AR submitted that the assessee is a public company, and its Profit & Loss Account is prepared in accordance with Part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. There was no allegation that the acc…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1), Vadodara vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2007/AHD/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…the Co-ordinate Bench had already decided that the sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt and, therefore, should not be included in the book profit. The AO's action of adding it back was incorrect as per Supreme Court ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), which held that the AO has no power to alter the book profits unless the accounts are not prepared as per the Companies Act. 13. 2. The AR submitted that the assessee is a public company, and its Profit & Loss Account is prepared in accordance with Part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. There was no allegation that the ac…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1462/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

…unexpired risk and no adjustment is permitted to such profits other than those listed in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC). 12. We further find that the premium deficiency of Rs 773000 has been allowed by the ld. AO under the normal provisions of the Act but the same has been added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. As stated supra, this is not an item contemplated to be added in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the r…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

…unexpired risk and no adjustment is permitted to such profits other than those listed in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC). 12. We further find that the premium deficiency of Rs 773000 has been allowed by the ld. AO under the normal provisions of the Act but the same has been added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. As stated supra, this is not an item contemplated to be added in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the r…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

…unexpired risk and no adjustment is permitted to such profits other than those listed in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC). 12. We further find that the premium deficiency of Rs 773000 has been allowed by the ld. AO under the normal provisions of the Act but the same has been added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. As stated supra, this is not an item contemplated to be added in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the r…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1285/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

…unexpired risk and no adjustment is permitted to such profits other than those listed in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC). 12. We further find that the premium deficiency of Rs 773000 has been allowed by the ld. AO under the normal provisions of the Act but the same has been added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. As stated supra, this is not an item contemplated to be added in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the r…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1284/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

…unexpired risk and no adjustment is permitted to such profits other than those listed in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC). 12. We further find that the premium deficiency of Rs 773000 has been allowed by the ld. AO under the normal provisions of the Act but the same has been added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. As stated supra, this is not an item contemplated to be added in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the r…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr vs. M/S Greenply Industries Limited

ITA/6/2023HC Gauhati03 Mar 2025

Bench: Honourable The Chief Justice Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date Of Judgment & Order : 04.03.2025

For Respondent: B SARMA, DR. ASHOK SARAF,MR P BARUAH,MR. N N
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 260A

…pertinent to note that the question as proposed also seeks addition to book profits on account of excess depreciation along with subsidy received by the respondent-assessee. It is settled position in law as held by the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v/s. CIT 255 ITR 273 that the Assessing Officer while computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Act has only a power to examine whether the books of account have been maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and have been duly audited. The book profits as reflected in the duly audited account have to be accepted by the Assessing Off…

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3514/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 115JSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

…xplanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act is not applicable in case of discrepancy in valuation of closing stock. 2.3. The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO erred in disregarding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC) and Malyalam Manorama v. CIT [2008] 169 Taxman 471 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the AO does not have the jurisdiction to go beyond the net profit shown in the audited profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act. 3. Disallowance on account of loss on foreign exchange fl…

M/S. Duflon Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6158/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…books of accounts are satisfied by the authorities under the Companies Act and have been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. This proposition was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tires Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 and this principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in several cases in the case of PCIT vs. Varun Corporation Limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 196 taxmann.com 539 held that book profit has been defined and explained in the Explanation 1 to Section 115J…

M/S. Duflon Industries Private Limited., Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6157/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…books of accounts are satisfied by the authorities under the Companies Act and have been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. This proposition was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tires Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 and this principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in several cases in the case of PCIT vs. Varun Corporation Limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 196 taxmann.com 539 held that book profit has been defined and explained in the Explanation 1 to Section 115J…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 PAN-AADCA9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/CHNY/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.3157/CHNY2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/s Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Tr…

DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd

ITA/196/2020HC Delhi13 Jan 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260A

…ITA 196/2020 Page 1 of 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.01.2025 + ITA 196/2020 & CM APPL. 9652/2020 DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs versus TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. Pravesh Sharma and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocates CORAM HON’BLE TH…

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…unexpired risk and no adjustment is permitted to such profits other than those listed in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC). 12. We further find that the premium deficiency of Rs 773000 has been allowed by the ld. AO under the normal provisions of the Act but the same has been added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. As stated supra, this is not an item contemplated to be added in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the re…