“minimum alternate tax”

PBA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

same, any addition or disallowance made under the normal provisions of the Act will not have any effect on the computation of minimum alternate tax and as a result, there is no tax sought to be evaded. It was submitted that in such a case, no penalty could be levied ... provisions u/s 115JB/115JC, for cases prior to A.Y. 2016-17-reg.- Section 115JB of the Act is a special provision for levy of Minimum Alternate Tax on Companies, inserted by Finance Act 2000 with effect from 1-4-2001. 2. Under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section

PBA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

same, any addition or disallowance made under the normal provisions of the Act will not have any effect on the computation of minimum alternate tax and as a result, there is no tax sought to be evaded. It was submitted that in such a case, no penalty could be levied ... provisions u/s 115JB/115JC, for cases prior to A.Y. 2016-17-reg.- Section 115JB of the Act is a special provision for levy of Minimum Alternate Tax on Companies, inserted by Finance Act 2000 with effect from 1-4-2001. 2. Under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section

DCIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Circle-2(3)(1) Tata Steel Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bombay House, 24, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai, Gpo, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb1247M (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2026

directing deletion of additions of Rs. 36,82,529/- and Rs. 13,60,000/- from the book profit for the purpose of computing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, despite sustaining the addition of Rs. 36,82,529/- under section 68? 4. Whether

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI SOLAR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishasst. Cit, Circle 3.3.1 Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Room No. 522, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 41/44, Sp. Centre Minoo Desai Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No. Aagcp 3195 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh Respondent By : Shri Arun Kranti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeal By The Revenue Arises Out Of Order Dated 29.07.2024, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. There Is Delay Of Four Days In Filing The Appeal. After Considering The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Reasonable Cause. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: (I) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Both The Assessing Officers In Their Remand Report Have Not Given Adverse Findings Against The Assessee On The Issue Of Long Term Capital Loss Carried Forward, When In Fact Both Of Them Have Categoricaly Disagreed With The Submissions Made By The Assessee."

loss of Rs.194,29,01,727/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book loss of Rs.171,28,11,497/- under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, primarily, to examine low profit ratio. 4. In course

RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

credit of Taxes Deducted at Source to the extent of INR 4,91,39,976. 5. The Ld. AO erred in not granting Minimum Alternate Tax Credit under section 115JAA of the Act amounting to INR 1,70,215. 6. The Ld. AO erred in not granting Foreign Tax Credit

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly\nallowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

concerns deletion of addition of Rs.\n89,00,000 made by the AO for computation of the income for\nthe purposes of Minimum Alternate Tax ('MAT') under Section\n115 JB of the Act. This pertained to the expenditure incurred\nfor earning exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

terms of section 91(1) of the Act. 11.6. Based on the above jurisprudence, parallel interpretation was drawn for giving judicial treatment to Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit in amalgamation cases by the Coordinate Benches of ITAT of Ahmedabad and Mumbai in Adani Gas Ltd v. ACIT

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 91(1) of the Act.\n\n11.6.\nBased on the above jurisprudence, parallel interpretation was\ndrawn for giving judicial treatment to Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT)\ncredit in amalgamation cases by the Coordinate Benches of ITAT of\nAhmedabad and Mumbai in Adani Gas Ltd v. ACIT

ANTONY LARA ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT- 1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21

returned income of ₹1,42,62,650/- under the normal provisions under the normal provisions and ₹75,70,83,250/- - under the Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”) under the Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”) provisions as declared in the return filed on 01.02.2021. declared in the return filed on 01.02.2021. declared ... formed the prima assessment records. On such examination, he formed the prima facie view that, in under the Schedule of Minimum Alternative Minimum Alternative Tax(MAT) computation forming computation forming part of the return, the assessee had part of the return, the assessee had included one-fifth of the “transition

DCIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

which explicitly included entities preparing financial statements under their governing Acts, such as the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, within the ambit of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT)." 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 126 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue, as pointed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14.1.2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. STAR UNION DAI-ICHI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Bleasst. Cit 14(1)(2), Star Union Dai-Chi Life Insurance Mumbai. Company Limited, Vs. 11Th Floor, Vishwaroop I.T.Park, Plot N.34,35 & 36 Sector 30A Of Iip Vashi, Mumbai 400 703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta -Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis

Rules has been deleted while setting aside the computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act as the provision of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) are not applicable to the respondent-assessee. Feeling aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal. 8. We have heard parties. Perused record. 9. This appeal

ACIT (CIR.) - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHANDAR POWER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

limitation for utilisation of these brought forward losses, which gets lapsed year on year, if left unutilised. Also, assessee has made payment of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) of Rs.53.47 crores in the year under consideration. It has carried forward of MAT credit which has remained unutilised and has lapsed. Accordingly

ACIT,CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRAPTI TRADING & INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Delhi Tribunal clarified the issue related to the disallowance of expenses incurred to earn exempt income. This decision primarily impacted the computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB of the Act. It is a well settled law that, disallowance calculated under section 14A cannot be added while computing

JCIT (OSD) -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

Assessing Officer had also made disallowance u/s. 43B of Rs.4,83,92,306/- while computing the book profit u/s.115JB to apply Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Further, assessee had claimed refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid in excess in relation to dividend distributed to its shareholder which was denied

STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sterlite Technologies Limited Principle Commissioner Of E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Income Tax- 27, Vs. Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Navi Mumbai Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Principle Commissioner Of Sterlite Technologies Limited Income Tax- 27, E-1 Waluj, Midc Industrial Vs. Navi Mumbai Area, Aurangabad - 431136 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaecs8719B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr & Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2023-24/1058725938(1), Dated Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Ay 2016-17 13.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, Ltu, Circle- 1, Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1.1 Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') In Not Allowing The Claim Of Appellant That The Rate Of Ddt In Respect Of Dividend Distributed To Its Overseas Holding Company Ought To Be Restricted To The Rate Of Tax Of 5% Prescribed Under Article 10(2) Of Applicable India- Mauritius Dtaa & That The Appellant Is Eligible For Refund Of Ddt Paid In Excess Of Such Rate.

Assessing Officer had also made disallowance u/s. 43B of Rs.4,83,92,306/- while computing the book profit u/s.115JB to apply Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Further, assessee had claimed refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid in excess in relation to dividend distributed to its shareholder which was denied