CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.

249 ITR 597High Court2001#1125 most cited

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

Book profits under Section 115JB must include income by way of capital gains, similar to how total income is calculated under Section 45.

99

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. · CIT vs Veekaylal Investments CO.(P) Ltd · 249 ITR 597 · Section 115JB · book profits · capital gains · Section 45 · income tax act · companies act · total income

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 115JASection 115JB(2)(i) (Explanation 1Section 115QASection 2(22)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 115jasection 115jb(2)book profitstransfer of capital assetwritten down valuesection 115jsection 2(24)section 115jbliable to taxsection 54section 35section 254

Judgments citing CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Mehsana vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 446/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

…rdance with section 115JB(2), and the AO was justified in making the addition after computing book profits in accordance with section 115JB(2), and this was supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court/ITAT in Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Mum.), Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 43 (Mum.), and Bilakhia Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 91 (Ahm). 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating miscellaneous receipts as business income, instead of income from other sources, without appreciating that these miscellan…

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Baroda

ITA 445/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

…rdance with section 115JB(2), and the AO was justified in making the addition after computing book profits in accordance with section 115JB(2), and this was supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court/ITAT in Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Mum.), Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 43 (Mum.), and Bilakhia Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 91 (Ahm). 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating miscellaneous receipts as business income, instead of income from other sources, without appreciating that these miscellan…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Mehsana

ITA 1968/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

…rdance with section 115JB(2), and the AO was justified in making the addition after computing book profits in accordance with section 115JB(2), and this was supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court/ITAT in Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Mum.), Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 43 (Mum.), and Bilakhia Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 91 (Ahm). 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating miscellaneous receipts as business income, instead of income from other sources, without appreciating that these miscellan…

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Baroda

ITA 1751/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

…rdance with section 115JB(2), and the AO was justified in making the addition after computing book profits in accordance with section 115JB(2), and this was supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court/ITAT in Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Mum.), Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 43 (Mum.), and Bilakhia Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 91 (Ahm). 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating miscellaneous receipts as business income, instead of income from other sources, without appreciating that these miscellan…

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle 4, Baroda

ITA 2089/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 50

…rdance with section 115JB(2), and the AO was justified in making the addition after computing book profits in accordance with section 115JB(2), and this was supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court/ITAT in Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Mum.), Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 43 (Mum.), and Bilakhia Holdings (P) Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 91 (Ahm). 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating miscellaneous receipts as business income, instead of income from other sources, without appreciating that these miscellan…

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)

…ed 16.11.2006, filed detailed submission substantiating the claim. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the Assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. : 249 ITR 597 (Bom) 19.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed before CIT(A) on this issue. The CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee by following orders of CIT(A) in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2001- 02, 2002-3 and 2003-04. 19.3. Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the relief granted by CIT(A). The Ld. Departmental Representative a…

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)

…ed 16.11.2006, filed detailed submission substantiating the claim. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the Assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. : 249 ITR 597 (Bom) 19.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed before CIT(A) on this issue. The CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee by following orders of CIT(A) in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2001- 02, 2002-3 and 2003-04. 19.3. Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the relief granted by CIT(A). The Ld. Departmental Representative a…

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Baroda vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1038/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Acit, Cir.2(1)(2) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vs Baroda. Race Course Circle, Baroda Pan : Aadcm 7339 H

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…pears that assessment order u/s.147/143(3) is erroneous in so far as I is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, in terms of section 263. This view is supported by the decisions of he Hon’ble High Court and ITAT in Veekaylal Investment Co P.Ltd., (2001) 249 ITR 597 (Mum.), Goetze India Ltd., (2014) 361 ITR 505 (Del), Summer Builders P.Ltd., (2012) 19 taxmann.com 43(Mum.) and Bilakhia Holdings P.Ltd., (2014) 49 taxmann.com 91 (Ahd.) You are gien an opportunity to show cause why an order u/s.263 be not passed and a similar addition made while computing book profits u/s.115JB towards, grants subsidies and cons…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

…has adjudicated the same issue and directed that “the learned CIT(A) is directed to consider this issue de novo after taking into account the aforesaid Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the…

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

…has adjudicated the same issue and directed that “the learned CIT(A) is directed to consider this issue de novo after taking into account the aforesaid Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

…has adjudicated the same issue and directed that “the learned CIT(A) is directed to consider this issue de novo after taking into account the aforesaid Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the…

Sabarmati Gas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member ITA No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2010-11 Sabarmati Gas Limited ACIT Gandhinagar Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Circle, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 Vs (Respondent) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Joint Commissioner of Sabarmati Gas Limited Income Tax(OSD), Vs Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 (Appellant) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Assessment Year 2012-13 & ITA No. 2002/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 Sabarmati Gas Limit…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Sabarmati Gas Limited, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1533/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member ITA No. 1607 & 1533/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2010-11 Sabarmati Gas Limited ACIT Gandhinagar Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Circle, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 Vs (Respondent) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Joint Commissioner of Sabarmati Gas Limited Income Tax(OSD), Vs Plot No. 907, Sector-21, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382021 (Appellant) PAN No: AAKCS0110N Assessment Year 2012-13 & ITA No. 2002/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 Sabarmati Gas Limit…

Rockline Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6595/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…erwise is provided u/s. 115JB with respect to claim u/s. 80IB. Further it has been claimed that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (122 Taxman 562) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in Veekaylal Investment Co.(P) Ltd. [249 ITR 597) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been submitted that the above decisions in the context of sub-section 115J and did not have any provisions corresponding to the present subsection (5) of section 115JB of the Act. 9. Per contra, learned CIT-DR relied upon the decision of learned CIT(A) and submitted that as per scheme…

A.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India Power Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1390/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

Section 36(1)(iii)

…llowed the same by taking note that sec. 115JB is applicable on capital profits. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO by relying on the decision of Veekay Lal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 249 ITR 597 and has held as under: “I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the relevant assessment records. There is a cleavage of opinion as whether profits on transfer of assets should be considered while computing MAT. The A/R of the appellant had cited a number of judicial decisions which have held that the profits on sale of fixe…

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…C), which clearly envisages that a claim can only be made through revised income of return. On merits, he submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the department in view of the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 597/116 Taxman 104 (Bom.) (ii) Kopran Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 119 ITD 355 (Mum.) (iii) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 130 TTJ 213 (Vizag) (iv) Duke Offshore Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 45 SOT 399/9 taxmann.com 214 (Mum.) (v) B & B Infotech Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 155 ITD 1040/63 taxmann.com 122 (Bang. - Trib.) His strong contentio…

Dy.CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 904/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…High Court held that such income have to be taken into account for computation of book profit. In this regard, learned Departmental Representative referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.) 9. The Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that ITAT, M/s. Alok Industries Ltd. Hyderabad Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd. vs DCIT, 131 TTJ 514 (Hyderabad) (SB) has duly taken note of these decisions and has held that in view of these decisions such exempt capital gain have to be computed and taken into account fo…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 903/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…High Court held that such income have to be taken into account for computation of book profit. In this regard, learned Departmental Representative referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.) 9. The Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that ITAT, M/s. Alok Industries Ltd. Hyderabad Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd. vs DCIT, 131 TTJ 514 (Hyderabad) (SB) has duly taken note of these decisions and has held that in view of these decisions such exempt capital gain have to be computed and taken into account fo…

DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Alok Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 900/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…High Court held that such income have to be taken into account for computation of book profit. In this regard, learned Departmental Representative referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.) 9. The Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that ITAT, M/s. Alok Industries Ltd. Hyderabad Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd. vs DCIT, 131 TTJ 514 (Hyderabad) (SB) has duly taken note of these decisions and has held that in view of these decisions such exempt capital gain have to be computed and taken into account fo…

DCIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alok Industries Limited., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 906/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT-DR) &For Respondent: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani
Section 115Section 115J

…High Court held that such income have to be taken into account for computation of book profit. In this regard, learned Departmental Representative referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.) 9. The Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that ITAT, M/s. Alok Industries Ltd. Hyderabad Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd. vs DCIT, 131 TTJ 514 (Hyderabad) (SB) has duly taken note of these decisions and has held that in view of these decisions such exempt capital gain have to be computed and taken into account fo…