← 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

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to computation of book profits for levy of minimum alternate tax. Amounts disallowed under section 14A cannot be added to the book profits computed under section 115JB. 10. Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Gokaldas Images ... normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation

Belden India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 424/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Belden India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Unit No. 233-236, 2Nd Floor, Spaze Circle-1(1), Edge, Tower-B, Sohna Road, Sector- Gurgaon 47, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb9624Q Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting available credit of excess minimum alternate tax amounting to INR 1,63,858. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying

Cj Darcl Logistics Limited, Haryana vs. Circle 7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234B

have considered the submissions. The only dispute is regarding considering surcharge and education cess also along with the tax while granting credit for minimum alternate tax of earlier years. For understanding the amount of tax credit available u/s 115JAA first of all, it is 2 necessary to understand the meaning

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 129(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(17)Section 2(18)

Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y 2019-20 the Ld. AO calculated tax liability on the basis of minimum alternate tax u/s 115JB without considering the fact that MAT is not applicable on the corporation as decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in assessee’s own case ... thus, taken up for disposal on merits. 4.3 It is observed that while processing the return of income, the AO has levied minimum alternate tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.2,47,61,511/- Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant

ITO 3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omega Investment & Properties Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 868/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.868/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer 3(2) (4) बिधम/ M/S. Omega Investment & Room No. 673,6Th Floor, Properties Ltd Vs. 32-B, Jolly Maker Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, No.2 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400020. 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0978L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 254Section 80Section 80I

income of Rs. 22,053/- [after claiming deduction u/s 80 IB(10) of the Act of Rs. 2,05,55,884/-] and offered Minimum Alternate Tax u/s 115JB of the Act on book-profit of Rs 3,77,85,596/-; and the AO completed the original scrutiny assessment ... 25/10/2007, declaring income of Rs. 22,050/-. Further, assessee has paid 12 AY 2007-08 M/s Omega Investment and Properties a minimum alternate tax u/s 115JB of the Act on book profit of Rs.3,77,85,596/-. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 801B(10) of I.T. Act amounting

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 970/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletrafigura India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-6 Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Plot No. C, 66G Block, Bhavan, Mg Road, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct3128N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Binani Industries Ltd, [2017] 82 taxmann.com 320 (Kolkata-Trib) held as under: The assessee------------------ Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Minimum - alternate tax (Depreciation/brought forward loss, unabsorbed) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Losses (both cash loss and depreciation loss) would continue to remain in books of account till they ... Airlines Vs. DCIT, [2021] 127 taxmann.com803 (Mum-Trib) held as under: Section 115JB, read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Minimum alternate tax Payment of (Unabsorbed depreciation) - Assessment year2014-15 Whether losses (both cash loss and depreciation loss) would continue to remain in books of account till

Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 200/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 92C

cannot be read into the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act pertaining to computation of book profits by levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act to that extent. For the aforementioned reasons

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 184/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR
Section 234ASection 35(1)(i)

Additionally, the Act also contains specific provisions which have a deeming fiction on income that could be subject to tax, e.g., Section 115JB (minimum alternate tax). It can be construed that the Act provides for taxing only real income whether received or accrued under the normal provisions and specifically provides

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result ground II is allowed

ITA 524/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to computation of book profits for levy of minimum alternate tax. Amounts disallowed under section 14A cannot be added to the book profits computed under section 115JB. 6 M/s.GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited. 10. Similarly ... normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act to that extent. 11. The Co-ordinate

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

Schedule–VI of the Companies Act, 1956. It was observed by the Branch that the starting point of computation of minimum alternate tax (MAT) is the result shown by such Profit & Loss Account. Since, in case of Banking company, the provisions of Schedule–VI of the Companies

M/S Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground No.1 to 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3346/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920

relevant provisions of the Act. 2. The learned AO/DRP erred, in law and in facts, in not providing the relief of additional Minimum Alternate Tax credit brought forward from earlier years, which the Appellant is entitled to set off against the tax liability computed by the Learned AO on account ... claim of assessee. IT(TP)A No.3346/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 22 9. By way of ground of appeal no. 2, the Appellant submits Minimum Alternate Tax ('MAT') credit of INR 1,21,42,780 brought forward from AY 2011-12 may kindly be set off! adjusted against tax liability computed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Manyata Promoters Private Limited (Erstwhile Embassy Office Parks Private Limited ), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 573/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 232

cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to computation of book profits by levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act to that extent. For the aforementioned reasons

M/S. Manyata Promoters Private Limited (Erstwhile Embassy Office Parks Private Limited Since Merged With Manyata Promoters Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)- Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 548/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 232

cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to computation of book profits by levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act to that extent. For the aforementioned reasons

ACIT Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Networks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6277/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

ready reference circular is reproduced as under: 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 271 of the Act, penalty

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6062/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

ready reference circular is reproduced as under: 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 (Hi) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act, penalty

Mellona Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1408/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mellona Developers Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(2)(2) Room No. 673A, Aayakar Bhavan 514, Dalamal Towers, 211 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aafcm3780K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal Department By : Shri Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

sources”. However, the notice 143(2) of the Act was issued on three grounds which are 7 M/s. Mellona Developers Pvt. Ltd., (i) minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) Liability mismatch, (ii) income from heads of income other than business / profession mismatch and (iii) unsecured loans. Therefore, the issue raised

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

effect: INR 19,517,792) 7. Short grant of credit for advance tax and tax deducted at source (‘TDS’) and non-grant of Minimum Alternate Tax (‘MAT’) 7.1. That the Learned AO erred in allowing lower advance tax credit amounting to INR 15,25,00,000 as against

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

No.14/Mum/2019 & C.O.No.272/Mum/2019 M/s. Credit Suisse AG by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. It states that Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions will not be available to FIIs and FPIs not having the business/Permanent Establishment in India for the period prior ... reproduce hereinbelow the said circular in entirety:— "Subject: Report on applicability of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on FIIs/FPIs for the period prior to 01.04.2015 and acceptance of the Government thereof-reg.— A Committee on Direct Tax Matters chaired by Justice A. P. Shah, was constituted to examine the issue

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

tax amounting to INR 127,73,28,126 (including surcharge and education cess). Post availing tax credit under Section 115JAA of the Act [Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT') provisions], the net tax liability was determined to INR 43,68,24,082. The same was discharged by the Appellant

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

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