Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT

330 ITR 363Supreme Court of India2011#1539 most cited

What is Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB, the book profit must reflect the true working results of the company. Capital receipts that are not income cannot be included in book profit, and adjustments based on notes on accounts can be made to arrive at the real profit.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT · Indo Rama Synthetics · Section 115JB · Minimum Alternate Tax · MAT book profit computation · real profit · true working result · notes on accounts · capital receipts · allowances and deductions MAT · deemed total income

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 539

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 250Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 207section 54eminimum alternate taxsection 94section 115jasection 211explanation to section 37section 38section 115jb(2)section 43(1)section 35(2ab)

Judgments citing Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1018/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.D.Verma, Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 139(5)

…eipt, would be liable for taxation u/s 115JB. The ITA Nos.883 & 1018/Kol/2014-Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt.Ltd A.Y.2010-11 16 tribunal after referring to several decisions on the issue viz., the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT 330 ITR 336 (SC), Apollo Tyres Ltd. 255 ITR 273 (SC), Special Bench ITAT in the case of Rain Commodities Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010) 131 TTJ (Hyd)(SB) 514, ITAT Luknow Bench in the case of ACIT vs. L.H.Sugar Factory Ltd and vice versa in ITA Nos. 417 , 418 & 339/LKW/2013 dated 9.2.2016 and decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Mcnally Bharati Engineering Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijayendra Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…ture of share warrants amounting to Rs. 12,65,75,000/-, being a capital receipt, would be liable for taxation u/s 115JB. The tribunal after referring to several decisions on the issue viz., the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT 330 ITR 336 (SC), Apollo Tyres Ltd. 255 ITR 273 (SC), Special Bench ITAT in the case of Rain Commodities Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010) 131 TTJ (Hyd)(SB) 514, ITAT Luknow Bench in the case of ACIT vs. L.H.Sugar Factory Ltd and vice versa in ITA Nos. 417 , 418 & 339/LKW/2013 dated 9.2.2016 and decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2…

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ring transaction or transaction of exceptional nature. The waiver of loan can no way be reckoned as working result of the company for the period. He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) wherein it has been held that object of the MAT provision is to bring out the ‘real profits’ of the companies and the main thrust is to find out the working result of the company. The real working result of a company can be arrived only after excluding the capital receipt and not otherwise. On the issue that assessee itself has included the…

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ring transaction or transaction of exceptional nature. The waiver of loan can no way be reckoned as working result of the company for the period. He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) wherein it has been held that object of the MAT provision is to bring out the ‘real profits’ of the companies and the main thrust is to find out the working result of the company. The real working result of a company can be arrived only after excluding the capital receipt and not otherwise. On the issue that assessee itself has included the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

ITTA/356/2014HC Telangana08 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D.C.I.T.CC - Xxviii, Kol., Kolkata vs. M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/ Shri K.V. Beswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…free status due to various deductions available under the Income Tax Act. There was never any intention of the legislature to tax what is not income at all. In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) has held that the object of MAT provisions is to bring out the real profit of the companies. The thrust is to find out the real working results of the company. Inclusion of receipt in the computation of MAT would defeat two fundamental principles, it would levy tax on receipt which is not in the nature of income at all and secondly it would…

ACIT, Range-I vs. Jubilant Organosys Ltd

ITA 4409/DEL/2003[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg.

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT- DR
Section 35ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA No. 4409/Del /2003 [Assessment Year: 1998-99] The A.CI.T Vs. M/s Jubilant Organosys Ltd Range – 1 Bhartiagram, J.P. Nagar Moradabad Gajraula PAN/GIR : V-101 ITA No. 4307/Del /2003 [Assessment Year: 1998-99] M/s Jubilant Organosys Ltd Vs. The A.CI.T Bhartiagram, J.P. Nagar Range - 1 Gajraula Moradabad PAN/GIR : V-101 [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 24.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 22.02.2016 Assessee by : Shri Rupesh Jain Shri Gaurav Jain Re…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd vs. ACIT, Range-I

ITA 4307/DEL/2003[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg.

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT- DR
Section 35ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA No. 4409/Del /2003 [Assessment Year: 1998-99] The A.CI.T Vs. M/s Jubilant Organosys Ltd Range – 1 Bhartiagram, J.P. Nagar Moradabad Gajraula PAN/GIR : V-101 ITA No. 4307/Del /2003 [Assessment Year: 1998-99] M/s Jubilant Organosys Ltd Vs. The A.CI.T Bhartiagram, J.P. Nagar Range - 1 Gajraula Moradabad PAN/GIR : V-101 [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 24.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 22.02.2016 Assessee by : Shri Rupesh Jain Shri Gaurav Jain Re…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II
Section 268A

…e by the AO. 22 ITA No.658(B)14 17.1 We have heard the learned DR as well as learned AR and considered the relevant material on record. The learned AR has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd Vs CIT 330 ITR 363 (SC) and submitted that it is only a notional gain on revaluation of the asset without actual realization. We find that though, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in relation to book profit u/s 115JB and an adjustment on account of increase in the reserves due to revaluation of the asset, however, the observations of the Hon’ble Supre…

CIT vs. Federal-Logul Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA/1366/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…t picture of net profits. The amount withdrawn from the valuation reserve was, therefore, not covered under clause (i) of the Explanation. It was also highlighted that in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) the reserve was created in the Assessment Year 2000-01, i.e., financial ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010& 2106/2010 • Page 28 of 40 year ending 31'' March, 2000 (wrongly mentioned as fmancial year ending 31'' March, 2011). The assessment year involved in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited (supra) was Assessment Year 2001…

CIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd

ITA/1979/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…t picture of net profits. The amount withdrawn from the valuation reserve was, therefore, not covered under clause (i) of the Explanation. It was also highlighted that in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) the reserve was created in the Assessment Year 2000-01, i.e., financial ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010& 2106/2010 • Page 28 of 40 year ending 31'' March, 2000 (wrongly mentioned as fmancial year ending 31'' March, 2011). The assessment year involved in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited (supra) was Assessment Year 2001…

CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd

ITA/2106/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…t picture of net profits. The amount withdrawn from the valuation reserve was, therefore, not covered under clause (i) of the Explanation. It was also highlighted that in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) the reserve was created in the Assessment Year 2000-01, i.e., financial ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010& 2106/2010 • Page 28 of 40 year ending 31'' March, 2000 (wrongly mentioned as fmancial year ending 31'' March, 2011). The assessment year involved in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited (supra) was Assessment Year 2001…

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA/1179/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

…ure of net profits. The amount withdrawn from the valuation reserve was, therefore, not covered under clause (i) of the Explanation. It was also highlighted that in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) the reserve was created in the Assessment Year 2000-01, i.e., financial ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 29 of 40 year ending 31st March, 2000 (wrongly mentioned as financial year ending 31st March, 2011). The assessment year involved in the case of In…

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA - 1179 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

…ure of net profits. The amount withdrawn from the valuation reserve was, therefore, not covered under clause (i) of the Explanation. It was also highlighted that in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) the reserve was created in the Assessment Year 2000-01, i.e., financial 2013:DHC:6339-DB ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 29 of 40 year ending 31st March, 2000 (wrongly mentioned as financial year ending 31st March, 2011). The assessment year involved i…