← All Phrases

“book profits”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 115JBSection 115JB1,713 judgments

The decision most relied on for book profits is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (328 ITR 81), cited in 1,183 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on book profits

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
165 ITD 27 · 2017 · ITAT
882
citing judgments

No disallowance under section 14A can be made while computing book profits under section 115JB unless the expenditure is debited to the profit and loss account and satisfies clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2).

Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
372 ITR 694 · 2015 · High Court
803
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This principle also applies when computing book profits under section 115JB.

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.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 363 · 1971 · Supreme Court
654
citing judgments

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

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.

Judgments citing book profits

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ulfex Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2807/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ulfex Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2806/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1732/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1731/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1730/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1729/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1728/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1727/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction ... being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is contended that sum of Rs. 26,02,13,481/- being sales tax under

DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 648/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.648/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Dcit Adidas India Marketing P. Ltd. Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Circle 1(1), Vs. Room No.153A, Sector-B, Pocket No.7, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Plot No.11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. South West Delhi, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca5313P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Officer made addition in an unilateral proceedings without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee or to make submissions and explain as to how book profits have been computed by the assessee under MAT provisions. Non-granting of an opportunity of hearing/making submissions is against the principles of natural justice

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1131/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountat Member Trafigura 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 Biswanath Das.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024 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 Biswanath Das.CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

prejudice to above, the PCIT has erred, in Law as well as in facts and circumstances of the case, in directing to reduce the Book Profit u/s 115JB by an amount of Rs. 74,29,230 only whereas the admissible amount, i.e., lower of 'unabsorbed depreciation' or 'business loss ... Mumbai. disclosing the total income Rs. Nil after claiming the set off the business loss of RS.10,31,94,584/- and the book profits computed u/sec 115JB of the Act at Rs. 25,56,81,538/- and the return of income was processed u/sec 143(1) of the Act with

United Inida Insurance Co. Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 42/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

Acitcorporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 130/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

United Inida Insurance Co. Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 13/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

Acitcorporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 129/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

Acitcorporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 128/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

ACIT, Chennai vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 426/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 639/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1671/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1670/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1585/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing
Section 14ASection 195Section 40

against the claim of the Appellant of URR based on Rule 6E of the Rules; and iv)Upholding the amount added to the Book Profits to the extent of disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act under the normal provisions ... only the expenses which are not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. 8.The Appellant submits while ascertaining the Book Profits: a)The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount debited as Reserve for Unexpired Risk (URR) cannot be treated as a "reserve