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 367,561 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

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…vestment Pvt. Ltd. [2017] ITA No. 502/ Del/2012 (Delhi Tribunal), which squarely applies to the Appellant's case. 6.5 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), 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 7. Disallowance of weighted deduction amounting to INR 17,54,78,992 claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act (Page…

Madras Sugars Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbaotre

ITA 433/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 433/CHNY/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Madras Sugars Limited, The DCIT, (amalgamated with Bannari Vs. Corporate Circle-1, Amman Sugars Limited), Coimbatore. 1212, Trichy Road, Sungam, Coimbatore – 641 018. PAN: AAGCM 0389M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"…

Labh Capital Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-7(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessees‟ are allowed

ITA 1326/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlabh Capital Services Pvt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd. 7(1)(4) A-Wing Mahatre Pen Room No. 1104, 11Th Bldg, Senapati Bapat Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Marg, Dadar (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400028 400020

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 142(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T VAKERY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Labh Capital Services Pvt Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd. 7(1)(4) A-Wing Mahatre Pen Room No. 1104, 11th Bldg, Senapati Bapat Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Marg, Dadar (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400028 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACL2308R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mahaveer Jain, AR, Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR Date of Hearing 24.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH :- 1. The present ap…

Malco Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115J

…mework as well as relevant Guidance note which is exactly against the view taken by the assessee, Therefore, we are not in a position accept the propositions raised by assessee. 53. Decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Appollo Tyres Limited [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC) will only apply if the accounts are prepared in accordance with the companies Act and relevant statutory pronouncements. It is held that the use of the words “in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act” in section 115J was made for the limited purpose of empowering the Assessing Officer to rely…

M/S Feelings, Margao vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji

The appeal is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 149/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 149/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Feelings, H. No. 2730, Murida, Fatorda Margao Goa- 403601 Pan:Aabff4135A . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 30Section 40

…ounting for ascertaining net profit and/or book-profit. The said section nowhere provides that the net profit as shown in the P&L A/c is not the profit computed under the head profit and gains of business. Following the principle laid down in Apollo Tyres Ltd 255 ITR 273 (SC), the AO is not entitled to recompute the P&L profits. Even if income from other sources is included in the P&L A/c, to ascertain the net profit qua book-profit for computation of remuneration of the partners the same cannot be discarded’. 6. A similar ratio also found laid by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ‘Md. Serajuddin & Bros. Vs CIT’…

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1189/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aakash UppalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

…. That the Ld. AO/NFAC grossly erred in law in making addition of income of INR 300,73,421 under section 115JB of the Act without appreciating that the same is against the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Typres Ltd. vs CIT (255 ITR 273). 6. That the Ld. AO/NFAC has grossly failed to appreciate in accordance with law, that they have limited powers of making adjustment (increase or reductions) as provided for in explanation to section 115JB of the Act. The Appellant prays that the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the Appellant reserves its right t…

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1188/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aakash UppalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

…. That the Ld. AO/NFAC grossly erred in law in making addition of income of INR 300,73,421 under section 115JB of the Act without appreciating that the same is against the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Typres Ltd. vs CIT (255 ITR 273). 6. That the Ld. AO/NFAC has grossly failed to appreciate in accordance with law, that they have limited powers of making adjustment (increase or reductions) as provided for in explanation to section 115JB of the Act. The Appellant prays that the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the Appellant reserves its right t…

M/S Pricol Limited, Coimbatore vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.642/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Pricol Limited Dcit बनाम 109, Cpm Towers, Race Course, Corporate Circle-2, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcp-0139-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Ca) & Shri Suraj Nahar (Ca)-Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Mohan Reddy (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (CA) &For Respondent: Shri R.Mohan Reddy (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…estments and on cancellation of investments in M/s. Pricol Pune Limited, have to be adjusted against/added to the book profit computed u/s 115JB. 2 The Learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres, reported in 255 ITR 273, has categorically stated that while arriving at the book profit, no adjustment, other than those permissible as per the explanation to the provisions of section 115J, shall be permitted so long as the Profit and loss account has been prepared in accordance with Schedule VI to the Companies Act and the same has been certified by the Statutory Aud…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 720/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…n view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same have been computed in accordance with Part-Il and ha…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 719/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…n view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same have been computed in accordance with Part-Il and ha…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 652/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…n view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same have been computed in accordance with Part-Il and ha…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 1424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…n view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of above exclusion is also permissible in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO Tyres (255 ITR 273) wherein it was held that the AO has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same has no powers to rework the book profits if the same have been computed in accordance with Part-Il and ha…

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm.of Income Tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2422/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Greatship (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., C/O, Kalyaniwalla Of Income Tax -5(1)(1) Mistry Llp, Esplanade Room No. 568, Aayakar House, 29, Hazarimal Bhavan, M.K. Road, Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Asif Karmali
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 928Section 92C

…CIT Vs. Sanmina SCI India (P) Ltd. (398 ITR 645) Madras HC) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Woco Motherson Advances Rubber Technologies Ltd. (406 ITR 375) (Gujarat HC) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Comnet System & Services Ltd. (305 ITR 409) (SC). 16. Heard both the sides on this issue and we find that AO has neither made any discussion nor proposed any addition in the draft assessment order pertaining to making adjustment in the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and also made…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

Bsl Ltd., Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usbsl Ltd., Vs. Dcit 26, Industrial Area, Central Circle-31, Post Box No. 17, New Delhi. Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001 Pan No. Aabcb0639G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Assessee Is The Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Synthetic/Wollen/Worsted Yarn Fabrics & Synthetics Fabrics, Manufacturing & Trading Of Ready-Made Garments, Generation Of Power, Processing Of Synthetics Etc. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income Bsl Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 801Section 80I

…code in itself and the increase or reduction of income is permissible only to BSL Ltd. Vs. DCIT 13 the extent provided under the explanation to the said section and following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Appollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/122 taxman 562 had held that the Tribunal in that case had not committed any error while characterizing both capital receipts and revenue receipts in a like manner for the computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 9. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the submissions made before the Bench it can be observed that o…

DCIT Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

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

ITA 1290/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

….f. 01.04.2007? 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in Rs.16,877/- deleting the addition made of Rs.84,350/- on the computation of (Notional) :: 2 :: book profit u/s 115JB by relying upon the decision o! Apollo Tyres Limited vs CIT 255 ITR 273 (SC) in the light sub-clause (f) of Explanation 1 given in section 115JB? 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Rs.19,28,214/- CIT(A) erred by directing the Assessing Officer to allow the (Notional) deduction claimed on account of "Provision no long required" without appreciating the fact that assessee had given the amou…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1507/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 127/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Ircon International Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, C-4, Distt.-Centre, Saket Special Range-04, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaaci0684H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…ssee. The relevant part o f the order of the Tribunal is as under: “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 o f Apollo tyres Vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). According to him , exclusion of DTAA is not provided in tha t 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 o f the assessee by the decision o f the Tribunal in the case o f the assessee for assessment yea…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

ITA 127/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 127/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Ircon International Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, C-4, Distt.-Centre, Saket Special Range-04, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaaci0684H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…ssee. The relevant part o f the order of the Tribunal is as under: “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 o f Apollo tyres Vs CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). According to him , exclusion of DTAA is not provided in tha t 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 o f the assessee by the decision o f the Tribunal in the case o f the assessee for assessment yea…

Omni Active Health Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 748/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 35Section 5Section 92C

…addition specified in Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer would not be entitled to tinker with the approved audited accounts as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Limited reported in 255 ITR 273. Accordingly, the addition of INR 86,72,367/- made by the Assessing Officer to Book Profits (as computed by the Appellant) under Section 115JB of the Act is ITA. No. 748/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 deleted. Thus, Ground No. 5 to 5.3 raised by the Appellant are allowed. In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed 33.…