Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum

216 CTR 102Supreme Court of India2008#23651 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 115JB Section 14A

Judgments citing Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum

Veedol Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 4(1) Veedol Corporation Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Yule House, 8, Dr. Rajendra 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Vs. Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1122C Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…se book profit for the purpose of Section 115J of the Act. The case of the assessee also squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum [2008] 300 ITR 251 (SC)/[2008] 216 CTR 102 (SC)[10- 04-2008], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the explanation to Section 115JB (2) of the Act has not provided any provision for addition of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the rules and the ld. AO is not empowered to add back the disallowance under the provision while calculating the book profit u/s 115Jb of the Act.…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 12 (1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4261/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Singh, CIT, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Court Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs DCIT, Private Limited, Circle-12(1), Enkay Towers, Udyog Vihar-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122016. PAN: AAACH3005M Assessment Year: 2003-04 DCIT, Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Circle-12(1), Private Limited, New Delhi. Enkay Towers, Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122016. PAN: AAACH3005M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Ja…

Xl India Business Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2145/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent) & S.A. No.16/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2145/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Xl India Business Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-9, New Delhi Ff-101, Building No. G-11, Sarines Sonia Sadan, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Pan :Aaacx0309A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 10A(1)Section 10A(4)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…o be added back in view of the Explanation -1(c) below the section on S.A. No. 16/Del/2019 115JB of the Act. In support of his claim, he relied on the following judgments: “1. Malyalam Manorma Vs. CIT [2008] 169 Taxman 471 (SC)/[2008] 300 ITR 251 (SC)/[2008] 216 CTR 102 (SC) (Copy Enclosed). Where Hon’ble supreme Court held that once accounts have been prepared as per Companies Act 1956 & certified by the statutory auditors, then there is no adjustment that can be made for the purpose of Income Tax Act, u/s 115JB, except save the changes enumerated therein. 2 Appollo Tyres Ltd Vs CIT r20021 122 Taxman 562 (SC)/[…