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 367,518 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 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

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 681/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Circle-07 Vs. A 135 Parfume Factory, Jaipur Heerawala RIICO, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCP 4088 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reve…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…book profit has not made any downward adjustments to the book profit on account of sales tax subsidy relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. Economic Explosives Ltd. ITA no.177/Nag./2022 ITA no.242/Nag./2023 v/s CIT, [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC), whereby the Assessing Officer concluded that the adjustment, as claimed by the assessee is outside the scope of the Items (i) to (viii) specified under Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act. Since the assessee has not made the claim by filing the revised return of income, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the cl…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…der Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. The book profit of the assessee Co. cannot be tinkered with any particular item which is not encompassed within the said Explanation. vi. As stated by the Supreme Court in the case Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) Assessing Officer has no power to tinker with the computation of book profit made by the assessee, once the accounts of the company are made in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act. The Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss A/c except to the extent provided in the E…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hsbc Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

…unting to Rs. 11,29,70,000 to the book profits under clause (c) to Explanation 1 of section 115JB of the Act without appreciating the facts of the Appellant. 1.1. erred in not following the principles of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi (255 ITR 273) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Minimum Alternative Taxes (MAT) under section 115]B of the Act is a self-contained code and the AO has no jurisdiction to alter the book profit except to the extent provided in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act; Disallowances of expenditures: ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 3 2…

Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 734/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 734/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd.,……………Appellant Flat-4D, Lansdown Heights, 6, Sarat Bose Road, Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aahcs9726M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-12(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115J

…ve account in the audited accounts of the company and the fact is duly reflected in the note-sheet to the audited accounts. The assessee thereafter relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Limited -vs.- CIT reported in 255 ITR 273 and submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to tinker with the book profit determined by the assessee, which has been qualified by the auditors. The ld. Assessing Officer did not accept this contention of the assessee and held that if the accounts are not prepared under the Companies Act in accordance with Part-I & III of Sch…

Ebixcash Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

ITA 2670/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…on 115JB (2) of the Act warranting any addition to book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. The law is very well settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the P a g e | 7 M/s Ebix Cash Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 1 case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. reported in 255 ITR 273 (SC) wherein it was held that the ld. Assessing Officer is not empowered to make any addition or deletion to book profit under Section 115 JB of the Act other than those specifically contemplated in Explanation 1 to section 115 JB (2) of the Act. The entire discussion of the ld. Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order (i.e. the set asi…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Radha Madhav Investments Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…Court rendered in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Limited [1973 88 ITR 192]. The 13 Radha Madhav Investments Pvt. Ltd. decision in PCIT Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd., in turn, placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT [255 ITR 273] which held that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account except to the extent provided in Explanation to Section 115J. Similar view has been expressed by our jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. JSW Energy Limited [2015 60 Taxmann.com 303], CIT v. Essar Tel…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

ITA 1977/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora, Nikhil Tiwari & Mihir ChitaliaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…ct from 1 April 2001. Therefore, no adjustment can be made if not authorized by the definition given in the then prevailing provisions of Explanation to section 115JB of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed by hi, on the following:- * Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) (SC) * Kinetic Motor Co (62 (TR 330) (Bom) - SLP dismissed by SC (270 ITR 3) (SC) * Usha Martin Industries Ltd (104 ITD 249) (Kol SB) * NCL Industries Ltd (88 ITD 150)(Hyd) 22. Ld. Counsel further submitted that even on the date of reopening, there was no retrospective amendment introduced in the Act. The amendments were introduced vide Finance…

Guruvastu Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5850/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Guruvastu Properties P. Ltd. Dcit – 1(1)(4) 47, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Ac Market 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 M K Road, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. VasantFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15JSection 250Section 45Section 54E

…her unless a particular provision of the Act is specifically barred, the same cannot be denied to the assessee. It is also observed that the said decision has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC), which has held that the ld. A.O. is not entitled to enquire the entries in the profit and loss account, except in accordance with Explanation to section 115J of the Act. The said decision has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) which again is said to be…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Aragen Life Sciences Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 483/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.483/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) A.C.I.T. Vs. Aragen Life Sciences Ltd Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabcg3208J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Meghnadh Chowhan,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: : Shri Meghnadh Chowhan,DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA No 483 of 2023 Aragen Life Sciences Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member AND Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.483/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) A.C.I.T. Vs. Aragen Life Sciences Ltd Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN: AABCG3208J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri S.P. Chidambaram राज" व "ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Meghnadh Chowhan,DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per L…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly devoid of merits and is dismissed

ITA/167/2023HC Delhi16 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 10Section 11Section 115Section 115JSection 12Section 14ASection 32

…on 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs. 89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the 1TAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. 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.‖ 21. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. (supra…

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 4

…The assessee has however, argued that the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to behind the net profit shown in the P & L account except to the extent provided in the explanation. The Assessee has placed its reliance on Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT 255 ITR 273 (SC) and Sutlej Cotton Mills 3 Modi Entertainment Ltd. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 45 ITD (SB) 22. The assessee's contention is rejected." Then, I may also reproduce here under the main points of reasoning given by the AO for rejecting contentions of the assessee company. These are:  Explanation (f) to sub-section 2 of section 115JB expressly provides that…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri K. C Selvamani (DR)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…-11 notified by the ICAI. It is also not in dispute that the shareholders at the annual general meeting approved the audited financial statements for AY 2014-15. Therefore, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) only the specific additions and reductions as & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd provided for in Explanation to Section 115JB, can be made to the net profit as declared in the audited financial statements for the relevant AY 2014-15. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, there is no specific adjustm…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 880/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…-11 notified by the ICAI. It is also not in dispute that the shareholders at the annual general meeting approved the audited financial statements for AY 2014-15. Therefore, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) only the specific additions and reductions as 110 ITA No.879 to 883/M/2021 & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd provided for in Explanation to Section 115JB, can be made to the net profit as declared in the audited financial statements for the relevant AY 2014-15. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR,…

Dy.CIT CC -5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2571/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…-11 notified by the ICAI. It is also not in dispute that the shareholders at the annual general meeting approved the audited financial statements for AY 2014-15. Therefore, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) only the specific additions and reductions as ITA No.879 to 883/M/2021 & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd 109 provided for in Explanation to Section 115JB, can be made to the net profit as declared in the audited financial statements for the relevant AY 2014-15. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR,…

DCIT- CC5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2569/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…notified by the ICAI. It is also not in dispute that the shareholders at the annual general meeting approved the audited financial statements for AY 2014-15. Therefore, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) only the specific additions and reductions as ITA No.879 to 883/M/2021 & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd 110 provided for in Explanation to Section 115JB, can be made to the net profit as declared in the audited financial statements for the relevant AY 2014-15. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. A…

CIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2565/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…-11 notified by the ICAI. It is also not in dispute that the shareholders at the annual general meeting approved the audited financial statements for AY 2014-15. Therefore, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) only the specific additions and reductions as 110 ITA No.879 to 883/M/2021 & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd provided for in Explanation to Section 115JB, can be made to the net profit as declared in the audited financial statements for the relevant AY 2014-15. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR,…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

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

ITA 178/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A

…with Explanation 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’bl…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 139/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A