← 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

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3299/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

made disallowance of Rs.3,58,69,794/-, Rs.68,46,172/- and Rs.27,97,935/- under section 14A read with rule 8D under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) computation under section 115JB of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Revenue is in appeal before

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

made disallowance of Rs.3,58,69,794/-, Rs.68,46,172/- and Rs.27,97,935/- under section 14A read with rule 8D under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) computation under section 115JB of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Revenue is in appeal before

M/S. Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

above, the Ld. AO / Ld. DRP has erred in law and facts of the case, in not providing relief of additional Minimum Alternate Tax ("MAT") credit of INR 12,142,780 brought forward from earlier years, which the Appellant is entitled to set off against the excess tax liability computed

Hamlet Construction (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1315/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh
Section 115JSection 14Section 80I

been stated above, the learned CIT-A erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting tax credit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under section 115JAA of the Act on the ground that the same is not claimed at the time of filing of return of income

Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7136/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S. Jana (AR)
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

concluded that the aforesaid amount of INR 2,24,876/- was to be added to book profits for the purpose of computing Minimum Alternate Tax under Section 115JB of the Act, the assessment was framed under the normal provisions of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the Appellant took this issue

A.T. Trade Overseas P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC- 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blea.T. Trade Overseas Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(4) A-601 Cello Trihumph 802, 8Th Floor I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E) Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai – 400063 Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aacca7944A Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 132Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245HSection 68

Further, he brought to our attention that the provisions of s. 115JB of the Act. Under the said provision which deals with minimum alternate tax, the legislature has specifically defined income tax for the purpose of the above provisions in Explanation 2 to s. 115JB

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

brought forward losses to the extent available as per Return of Income (Roll B. Computation of income under section 115JB of the Act - Minimum Alternate Tax (`MAT) Issue 3 — Provision for future losses 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the in the earlier

Amicrop Management India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 2171/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

then subsequently recovering it from them: 3. The learned AO has erred in law and in facts by restricting the amount of Minimum Alternate Tax ("MAT") credit set-off to the amount claimed by the Appellant in its return of income and not providing the complete MAT credit ... additional ground no. 6 raised assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground no. 3 is in respect of restricting the minimum alternate tax credit set of as per the provisions of section 115JAA. Assessee is directed to file requisite documents in support of the claim. The Ld.AO shall verify

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

brought forward losses to the extent available as per Return of Income (Roll B. Computation of income under section 115JB of the Act - Minimum Alternate Tax (`MAT) Issue 3 — Provision for future losses 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the in the earlier

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

then subsequently recovering it from them: 3. The learned AO has erred in law and in facts by restricting the amount of Minimum Alternate Tax ("MAT") credit set-off to the amount claimed by the Appellant in its return of income and not providing the complete MAT credit ... additional ground no. 6 raised assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground no. 3 is in respect of restricting the minimum alternate tax credit set of as per the provisions of section 115JAA. Assessee is directed to file requisite documents in support of the claim. The Ld.AO shall verify

M/S E-Land Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3163/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

also filed an additional ground stating that the return of income filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying “Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) liability mismatch”, but the AO has proceeded to examine the issue of “date of setting up of business”, which was not within the scope

Cisco Systems Services B.V, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

Grounds of appeal relating to other matters 20. The learned AO has erred in law and in fact, by not providing credit of Minimum Alternate Tax while computing the total tax payable by the Appellant. 21. The learned AO has erred. in law and in fact. by restricting the credit

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of

ITA 601/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 32(1)(i)

thereby resulting in double taxation of the said amount. 6. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit amounting to & S.A. No.167/Del/2021 Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. vs. ACIT Rs.29,10,99,501 claimed by the appellant in its returnof income ... appeal, it was submitted that the Assessing officer had not granted the credit of Rs. 29,10,99, 501/-standing against the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) account which may be granted to the assessee after due verification. Similarly, in respect of ground No. 7, it was submitted that the Assessing

ACIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi vs. Lemon Tree Hotel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1450/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri P.K.Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd., Circle-15(1), B-6/17, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110029. Pan-Aacck1698R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Princy Singhla, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Mukal Baga, Adv. & Shri Vikas Singh, Ca Date Of Hearing 29.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Question No.6 concerns deletion of addition of Rs.89,00,000 made by the AO for computation of the income for 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

ACIT, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 09

ITA 5723/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Section 14ASection 44

being disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r 8D to the book profits calculated under section 115 JB for the levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) without appreciating that: for the purpose of calculating “Book Profits” u/s 115JB, (a) Page 14 of 19 expenditure incurred for earning income exempt

Inductis (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 5205/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

grossly erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not allowing credit of Minimum Alternate Tax of Rs.20,967,078 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 4. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on the facts ... business has been used for work of investment in equity shares. 4. In AY 2014-15, AO has also not allowed credit of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) of Rs.2,09,67,078/- as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Consequently, AO framed the assessment on the total

Inductis (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 1510/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

grossly erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not allowing credit of Minimum Alternate Tax of Rs.20,967,078 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 4. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on the facts ... business has been used for work of investment in equity shares. 4. In AY 2014-15, AO has also not allowed credit of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) of Rs.2,09,67,078/- as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Consequently, AO framed the assessment on the total

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6247/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

otherwise not subject to tax under the normal provisions of the Act are not envisaged to be taxed under the provisions of “Minimum Alternate Tax”. Once a receipt is not considered as income, the same cannot be subjected to tax under this Act as such receipt naturally classified under capital

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6246/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

otherwise not subject to tax under the normal provisions of the Act are not envisaged to be taxed under the provisions of “Minimum Alternate Tax”. Once a receipt is not considered as income, the same cannot be subjected to tax under this Act as such receipt naturally classified under capital

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6245/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

otherwise not subject to tax under the normal provisions of the Act are not envisaged to be taxed under the provisions of “Minimum Alternate Tax”. Once a receipt is not considered as income, the same cannot be subjected to tax under this Act as such receipt naturally classified under capital