What is CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Book profits, as determined from the financial statements prepared under the Companies Act, are generally immune from arbitrary alteration by tax authorities when computing minimum alternate tax (MAT) under Section 115JB, except for specific adjustments mandated by income-tax law.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.?

99 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 10(38), Section 115J, Section 115JA, Section 115JB(2)(i) (Explanation 1.

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597)

M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

ITTA/53/2009HC Telangana31 Jul 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 115JSection 260

…away credited to the capital reserve. 4. On appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the appellate authority, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs VEEKAYLAL INVESTMENT CO.(P) LTD. ((2001)249 ITR 597 (Bom) has held that, even under clause 3(xii)(b) of Part II of 5 Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 (‘Companies Act’, for short), profit or losses in respect of transactions of an exceptional or non-recurring nature are to be disclosed. Thus, held that capital gains should be included for the purpose of computing book profit. On…

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

…32 (Guj) (ix) CIT vs. Binani Cement Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 281 (Cal) (x) Jubilant Energy (P) Lt. vs. DCIT (3927/Del/2016 (Delhi – Trib.) (xi) Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alluddin & Co. vs. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 490 (AP) (xii) CIT vs. Veekaylal Investment Co.(P.) Ltd. (249 ITR 597 (Bom) (xiii) ACIT vs. Reliance Welfare Association (ITA No.5976/Mum/2012) (Trib- Mumbai) (xiv) Zyma Laboratories Ltd. vs. ACIT [2006] 7 SOT 164 (Mumbai Trib.) (xv) Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 122 taxmann.om 562 (SC) (xvi) Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. UOI [132 Taxman 373] (SC) and (xvii) Banyan & Berry vs. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj). 14. On the…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 727/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…on'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bhagwan Industries Ltd in ITA No. 436 of 2015, order dated 18.07.2017 and CIT vs. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt Ltd 304 ITR 401 (Bom), and also CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd [2001] 249 ITR 597 (Bom.), where it was held that book profits cannot be tinkered with and in the case of the Special Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in Rain Commodities Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 40 SOT 265 that exempt capital gain has to be considered for computing the book profits. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition by relying on the decision o…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 726/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Section 115JSection 250

…le\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bhagwan Industries Ltd in ITA\nNo. 436 of 2015, order dated 18.07.2017 and CIT vs. Akshay Textile Trading &\nAgencies Pvt Ltd 304 ITR 401 (Bom), and also CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.)\nLtd [2001] 249 ITR 597 (Bom.), where it was held that book profits cannot be tinkered\nwith and in the case of the Special Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in Rain Commodities\nLtd. v. DCIT [2010] 40 SOT 265 that exempt capital gain has to be considered for\ncomputing the book profits. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned\naddition by relying on the decisi…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 725/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: MS. Deepa Hiray (Addl. CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…d in ITA No. 436 of 2015, order dated 18.07.2017 and CIT vs. Akshay Textile Trading & ITA No. 726, 725 & 727/Mum/20258 (A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09) Alok Industries Ltd. Agencies Pvt Ltd 304 ITR 401 (Bom), and also CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd [2001] 249 ITR 597 (Bom.), where it was held that book profits cannot be tinkered with and in the case of the Special Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in Rain Commodities Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 40 SOT 265 that exempt capital gain has to be considered for computing the book profits. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition by relying on the decision o…

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)

…the claim for deduction not claimed before the assessing officer by filing a revised return of income. Decisions relied on by the CIT(A): The CIT(A) vide its order relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597), wherein the Bombay High Court held that if the profit is not computed in accordance with Part II and Part III of the Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, the assessing officer has power to re-compute such book profit. Thus, it can be said that if the assessing officer can amend the book profit, if it is not in accordance with Part II and Par…

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)

…the claim for deduction not claimed before the assessing officer by filing a revised return of income. Decisions relied on by the CIT(A): The CIT(A) vide its order relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597), wherein the Bombay High Court held that if the profit is not computed in accordance with Part II and Part III of the Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, the assessing officer has power to re-compute such book profit. Thus, it can be said that if the assessing officer can amend the book profit, if it is not in accordance with Part II and Par…

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

…e capital gains of Rs. 19,74,489 are not to be taken into account while computing the profits liable to be taxed under section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd.249 ITR 597 was not applicable ? Insofar as question No. "C", our attention is invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT255 ITR 273. The question framed therein which is similar to question No. "C" has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the light of that, the question of law as framed would not…

DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE -6(3), MUMBAI vs. KARANJA TERMINAL & LOGISTICS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2159/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115J

…eceived which was admittedly ciapital in nature can be subjected to MAT. The ITAT held that there wsis never any intention behind introduction of section 115JB to tax something which is not taxable at all. 21. In the case of Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt.Ltd. 249 ITR 597(Bom) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that direct transfer of an item to capital reserve account will not be in accordance with the requirement of the Companies Act and therefore, the AO has the power to recompute the book profit as per the Companies Act. However, the said judgement was rendered prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme…

DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE -6(3), MUMBAI vs. KARANJA TERMINAL & LOGISTICS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2158/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115J

…eceived which was admittedly ciapital in nature can be subjected to MAT. The ITAT held that there wsis never any intention behind introduction of section 115JB to tax something which is not taxable at all. 21. In the case of Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt.Ltd. 249 ITR 597(Bom) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that direct transfer of an item to capital reserve account will not be in accordance with the requirement of the Companies Act and therefore, the AO has the power to recompute the book profit as per the Companies Act. However, the said judgement was rendered prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme…

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 717/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

…o the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Veekay Lal Investment Co. Court in the case of CIT Vs Veekay Lal Investment Co. Court in the case of CIT Vs Veekay Lal Investment Co. Ltd 249 ITR 597 (Bom); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the Ltd 249 ITR 597 (Bom); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the Ltd 249 ITR 597 (Bom); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of NJ Jose and company Vs ACIT, case of NJ Jose and company Vs ACIT, 174 Taxman 174 Taxman Everest Industries Ltd. 37 ITA No. 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 141 (Kerala) ; decision…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1421/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

…o the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Veekay Lal Investment Co. Court in the case of CIT Vs Veekay Lal Investment Co. Court in the case of CIT Vs Veekay Lal Investment Co. Ltd 249 ITR 597 (Bom); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the Ltd 249 ITR 597 (Bom); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the Ltd 249 ITR 597 (Bom); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of NJ Jose and company Vs ACIT, case of NJ Jose and company Vs ACIT, 174 Taxman 174 Taxman Everest Industries Ltd. 37 ITA No. 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 141 (Kerala) ; decision…