CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd.

104 ITD 249Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#3329 most cited

What is CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. authority for?

Adjustments to book profits for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB are limited to those explicitly provided for in the Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. · section 115JB · book profits · MAT · Explanation to section 115JB · adjustments · minimum alternate tax · taxable income

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234BSection 254Section 41(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)book profitssection 115jsection 115jbliable to taxsection 40(a)disallowance u/s 14asection 14asection 115section 40section 234section 23

Judgments citing CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd.

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3786/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…. On appraisal of the said finding, we noticed that the claim of the assessee has been allowed in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom) and JCIT Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (Kolkata Tribunal) SB. We also noticed that the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by CIT(A) for the A.Y. 1998-99 also and against the said decision, the revenue is not in appeal. It is reiterated that the adjustment can only be made in view of Section 115JB of the Act which has been specified in Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. I…

Acc Ltd (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3490/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…. On appraisal of the said finding, we noticed that the claim of the assessee has been allowed in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom) and JCIT Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (Kolkata Tribunal) SB. We also noticed that the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by CIT(A) for the A.Y. 1998-99 also and against the said decision, the revenue is not in appeal. It is reiterated that the adjustment can only be made in view of Section 115JB of the Act which has been specified in Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. I…

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…. On appraisal of the said finding, we noticed that the claim of the assessee has been allowed in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom) and JCIT Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (Kolkata Tribunal) SB. We also noticed that the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by CIT(A) for the A.Y. 1998-99 also and against the said decision, the revenue is not in appeal. It is reiterated that the adjustment can only be made in view of Section 115JB of the Act which has been specified in Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. I…

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…. On appraisal of the said finding, we noticed that the claim of the assessee has been allowed in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom) and JCIT Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (Kolkata Tribunal) SB. We also noticed that the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by CIT(A) for the A.Y. 1998-99 also and against the said decision, the revenue is not in appeal. It is reiterated that the adjustment can only be made in view of Section 115JB of the Act which has been specified in Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. I…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

…Officer before the CIT(A), but could not succeed. In the second appeal, this Tribunal in ITA No.5105/Mum/2004 vide order dated 09/05/2008 allowed the claim of the assessee by following the Special Bench decision in case of JCIT vs Usha Martin Industries Ltd 104 ITD 249 (Cal)(SB). The department filed an M.A. against the said order of the Tribunal in view of the amendment in the provisions of section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2009 wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 19/11/2010 allowed the M.A. and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the case as per accounts prepared in accordance with Schedule 6 of Comp…

The DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4345/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan (Before known as Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 PAN/GIR No.AAACN4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) DCIT. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly known as Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before known as Nicholas Piramal…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…ed as an ascertained liability, and therefore needs to be added back to the net profits for arriving at the book profit subject to MAT. However, distinguishing this decision, the Special Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of JCIT vs. Usha Martin Industries (104 ITD 249) held that the provision for bad debt is not liability per se, as no liability would be fastened upon the tax-payer even if the underlying debt is not recovered. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet systems & Services Limited (305 ITR 409) held that the provision of doubtful debts is akin to the provision of diminution in value o…

M/S Aspinwall & Co., Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…ed as an ascertained liability, and therefore needs to be added back to the net profits for arriving at the book profit subject to MAT. However, distinguishing this decision, the Special Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of JCIT vs. Usha Martin Industries (104 ITD 249) held that the provision for bad debt is not liability per se, as no liability would be fastened upon the tax-payer even if the underlying debt is not recovered. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet systems & Services Limited (305 ITR 409) held that the provision of doubtful debts is akin to the provision of diminution in value o…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…ed as an ascertained liability, and therefore needs to be added back to the net profits for arriving at the book profit subject to MAT. However, distinguishing this decision, the Special Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of JCIT vs. Usha Martin Industries (104 ITD 249) held that the provision for bad debt is not liability per se, as no liability would be fastened upon the tax-payer even if the underlying debt is not recovered. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet systems & Services Limited (305 ITR 409) held that the provision of doubtful debts is akin to the provision of diminution in value o…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…ed as an ascertained liability, and therefore needs to be added back to the net profits for arriving at the book profit subject to MAT. However, distinguishing this decision, the Special Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of JCIT vs. Usha Martin Industries (104 ITD 249) held that the provision for bad debt is not liability per se, as no liability would be fastened upon the tax-payer even if the underlying debt is not recovered. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet systems & Services Limited (305 ITR 409) held that the provision of doubtful debts is akin to the provision of diminution in value o…

Caprihans India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dccc -36, Mumbai

ITA 4252/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos. 4252 To 4254/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08) M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Dy. Cit Central Circl-36 Block-D, Shivsagar Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Central Circle-36, Room No.11, Block-D, Shivsagar Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Dr. Annie Besant Road,Worli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai- 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Murlidhar, A.R Respondent By: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Assessee & The Revenue Being Aggrieved With The Order Passed By The Cit(A)- 41, Mumbai, Dated 31.12.2009 For A.Y. 2005-06 Have Preferred Cross-Appeals Before Us. Also, The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Respective Orders Of The Cit(A)-41 For A.Y. 2006-07 & A.Y. 2007-08, Both Dated 31.12.2009. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

…d not be added back while computing the „book profit‟ under the said statutory provision. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, Special Bench in the case of JCIT Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (SB). (iii). Per contra, the ld. D.R has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. Decision : (i). We have heard the authorized representatives for both parties in context of the aforesaid issue, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. On…

Alstom India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6960/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri G. Manjnatha

For Appellant: Shri Mrunal Parekh a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…oresaid decision of the Assessing Officer before the first appellate authority. 6 G.E. Power India Ltd. 10. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in JCIT v/s Usha Martin Industries Ltd., [2007] 104 ITD 249 (Kol.) and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Maharashtra State Electricity Board v/s JCIT, [2002] 82 ITD 422 (Mum.), held that the provision for bad and doubtful debt and advances is not a liability of the assessee but diminution in value of the asset. Therefore, Explanation–1(c) of section 115JB(2) of the Act would not be applicable…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3755/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 44CSection 90

…ction 115JB of the Act therein, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is purely academic if the Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision in case of JCIT vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (Kol.) (SB) and CIT vs. Echjay Forgings (P.) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bombay HC). The Ld. AR submitted that wealth tax is not required to be added while computing book profits for the purpose of MAT. As relates to Ground No. 2 regarding deduction for interest paid by the Indian branches to HO/other overseas branches and Taxability of interest rece…

M/S. the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ufj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3707/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 44CSection 90

…ction 115JB of the Act therein, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is purely academic if the Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision in case of JCIT vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (Kol.) (SB) and CIT vs. Echjay Forgings (P.) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bombay HC). The Ld. AR submitted that wealth tax is not required to be added while computing book profits for the purpose of MAT. As relates to Ground No. 2 regarding deduction for interest paid by the Indian branches to HO/other overseas branches and Taxability of interest rece…

The West Bengal Power Development Corpn. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 5, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

…eeds to be added back to the net profits for arriving at the book profit subject to MAT. However, distinguishing this decision, the Special bench of Kolkata ITAT rendered a decision in October 2006 in the case of Jt. CIT vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 it held that the provision for bad debt is not a liability, per se, as no liability would be fastened upon the tax-payer even if the underlying debt is not recovered. It, therefore, concluded that the question whether the provision is an ascertained or unascertained liability does not arise. (e) The controversy continued till September 2008 when…