← All Phrases

“minimum alternate tax”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 115JBSection 115JB222 judgments

The decision most relied on for minimum alternate tax is ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (82 Taxmann.com 415), cited in 789 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on minimum alternate tax

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · High Court
789
citing judgments

Disallowance computed under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes. Additionally, for Section 14A disallowance, only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are considered for calculating their average value.

Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT
255 ITR 273 · 2002 · Supreme Court
657
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115J, arrears of depreciation, including those arising from assets working extra shifts, are a necessary charge on profits if debited to the profit and loss account and are allowable as such.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

PCIT v. Ankit
416 ITR 591 · 2019 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Capital receipts, including interest subsidy received under schemes like TUF, are excluded when computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. This principle also extends to the reduction of provisions written back from book profits for MAT purposes.

Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 305 · 2010 · Supreme Court
85
citing judgments

Section 115JB is a self-contained code for computing book profit, which relies on audited financial statements subject to adjustments under Explanation 1. Restrictions on export profit deductions under Section 80HHC(1B) for normal tax computation do not automatically apply when computing book profits under Section 115JB.

CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd.
251 ITR 15 · 2001 · High Court
75
citing judgments

Wealth tax paid by an assessee cannot be added back to net profit for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115J or section 115JB, as wealth tax is not included in the definition of 'income-tax' under the Explanation to these sections.

Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT
330 ITR 363 · 2011 · Supreme Court
74
citing judgments

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.

Rain Commodities Ltd. v. DCIT
41 DTR 449 · 2010 · ITAT
71
citing judgments

The ITAT Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd. held that certain capital receipts, such as forfeited share warrants, if credited to the profit and loss account, are liable for book profits tax under Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax).

Judgments citing minimum alternate tax

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 903/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat. Considering The Same, The Order Passed By Itat Was Recalled & The Appeal Of The Assessee Fixed For Adjudication Afresh On Merits, Vide Order In Ma No.94/Ahd/2025, Dated 18.12.2025. The Present Appeal, Accordingly, Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

assessee a claim of alleged unascertained liability amounting to Rs.5,24,57,202/- while computing its book profits liable to tax under the minimum alternate tax regime u/s.115JB of the Act. The Book Profits had been determined at Rs.3,94,60,143/- in the assessment order. ITA No.903/Ahd/2016 [Ambalal Sarabhai

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4212/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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

ITA 4211/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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

ITA 6471/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

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

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 268ASection 68

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 vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5135/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

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."

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kranti Datta – CIT DR

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

ITA 3853/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 92C

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

ITA 2831/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

computation of the income for 54 Shapoorji Pallaonji And Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2831/MUM/2025 & CO. the purposes of Minimum Alternate Tax (‘MAT’) under Section 115 JB of the Act. This pertained to the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The ITAT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Golapar, Kathgodam vs. Ms Spp Polymer Limited, Paharganj, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S Ssp Polymer Limited Of Income Tax, Aayakar Plot No. 1, Bsti Tante Wale, Bhawan, Chorgalia Road, Ram Kumar Marg, Motia Khan, Golapar, Kathgodam, Paharganj, Delhi, 110055 Haldwani Pan: Aaics9526Q

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

only added in the normal computation of income but 4 ACIT Vs. MS SPP Polymer Ltd. also added for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s.115JB. During the appeal proceedings, the assessee submitted the following:- 3.3 It stated that it is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

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

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

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

M/S. Bay Forge Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Co, Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

income. The return was also accompanied by a report in Form No. 29B certifying the book profits to be 'NIL' in terms of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions of section 115JB. The Assessing Officer noticed that while computing book profits under section 115JB, the assessee had claimed a deduction ... income. The return was also accompanied by a report in Form No. 29B certifying the book profits to be 'NIL' in terms of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions of section 115JB. The Assessing Officer noticed that while computing book profits under section 115JB, the assessee had claimed a deduction

Balaji Powertronics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2743/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Balaji Powertronics, Vs. Dcit, Circle-43(1), H-56, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi Main Rohtak Road, Delhi – 1100 41 Pan :Aagfb0501M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 80Section 928A

capital in nature not chargeable to tax under normal provisions of the Act cannot be included as part of Book profits for computing minimum alternate tax u/s 115IB of the Act. 9.3 On identical issue the matter has been allowed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case

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

ITA 3505/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: 01/10/2025
Section 115JSection 263

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 vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

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 vs. Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3100/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta -CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

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

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur vs. The Csb Bank Ltd, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

doubtful debt the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores. 3.1. Vijaya Bank decision is applicable only for normal Income and not MAT Income [Minimum Alternate Tax, u/s.115JB of the Income tax Act] 3.2. For Minimum Alternate Tax [u/s.115JB of the Income tax Act] calculation, Rs.57.57 Crore is not applicable

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

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 vs. Trapti Trading & Investments Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4851/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

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 vs. Sterlite Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 612/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

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

ITA 584/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

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.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Ms. Palak Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR and Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

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