Section 115J of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 115J is CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 597), cited in 99 of the 63 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115J

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 597 · 2001 · High Court
99
citing judgments

Book profits under Section 115JB must include income by way of capital gains, similar to how total income is calculated under Section 45.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
9 SCC 337 · 2008 · Reported
48
citing judgments

The classification of a government subsidy as either a revenue or capital receipt depends on its object and purpose. If the subsidy is given to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or expand an existing one, it is a capital receipt; if it is to meet recurring expenses, it is a revenue receipt.

JCIT v. Rolta India Ltd.
330 ITR 470 · 2011 · Supreme Court
44
citing judgments

Interest under sections 234B and 234C is leviable for failure to pay advance tax, even when the income tax is ultimately computed under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions, specifically sections 115JA or 115JB. This ruling clarified the law, overturning previous interpretations.

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji
35 ITR 148 · 1959 · Supreme Court
41
citing judgments

Compensation received for the cancellation of an agency agreement is a capital receipt if it impairs the assessee's trading structure or results in the loss of a source of income. However, if the contract is terminated in the ordinary course of business, the compensation may be considered a revenue receipt, with classification depending on the specific facts of each case.

LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
3 SCC 151 · 1989 · Reported
39
citing judgments

Courts cannot substitute their own views for those of the Directorate of Enforcement when assessing whether actions were taken arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. The court must consider the substance of the matter, not just the form.

18.07. 2017. 2. CIT v. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt Ltd.
304 ITR 401 · 2008 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Exempt capital gains must be considered when computing book profits under Section 115JB. Book profits cannot be arbitrarily adjusted.

Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. CIT
300 ITR 251 · 2008 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

Adjustments to book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are restricted to those explicitly provided in Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2). The Assessing Officer lacks the jurisdiction to make adjustments beyond those specified in the Explanation, even if related to depreciation or other disallowances.

Rain Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
40 SOT 265 · 2010 · ITAT
35
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments cannot be added back to book profits under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, as they are not among the permissible adjustments listed in Explanation I to section 115JB(2). Exempt capital gains must be considered when computing book profits under section 115JB.

Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762
3 SCC 719 · 1980 · Reported
33
citing judgments

A binding precedent retains its authority even if it was poorly argued, inadequately considered, or fallaciously reasoned. New discoveries or argumentative novelties cannot compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.

CIT v. Metal & Chromium Plater (P.) Ltd.
415 ITR 123 · 2019 · High Court
29
citing judgments

In the context of Section 115J, capital gains are included for assessment. Unlike Sections 115JA and 115JB, Section 115J does not have specific provisions for adjustments to book profits.

Judgments on Section 115J

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufactureing Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6996/MUM/2013[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6996/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1989-90) M/S The Bombay Dyeing & बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Tax Circle 2(1), Manufacturing Co.Ltd., Vs. Room No.575, Neville House, Aayakar Bhavan, J N Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, M K Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaact2328K अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Yogesh A Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.5.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :14.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & It Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2013 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2089-90 . 2. The Issue Raised In Grounds Of Appeal No.1 Is Against Holding By The Cit(A) That Application U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called The Act) Was Not Within The Time As Provided In Section 154(7) Of The Act & The Cit(A) Ought To Have Held That The Period Of Limitation Should Be Reckoned From The Date

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)