Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.206

Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 206 (Special provision for minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 206 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 115JB is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 of the 5,494 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115JB

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

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.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT
245 ITR 428 · 2000 · Supreme Court
901
citing judgments

A business liability that has definitely arisen in an accounting year is deductible even if it needs to be quantified and discharged later, as long as its incurring is certain and can be reasonably estimated.

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).

Judgments on Section 115JB

DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khanna Rayon Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3233/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3233/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Dcit, Cir 4(2)(1) M/S. Khanna Rayon Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, Silk House, Silk Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bazar, J.S.S. Road, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs3407M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sandeep Raj (Dr) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -09 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee Of Rs. 17,00,00,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Tdr, Holding It As A Capital Receipt Not Subject To Tax, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Itself Submitted That Out Of 86,000 Sq. Ft. Of Saleable Area, 65,000 Sq. Ft. Was Constructed & A.Y.2012-13 The Balance Of 21, 000 Sq. Ft. Of Saleable Area Which Was Kept For Themselves Have Been Converted As Stock-In-Trade In A. Y. 1995-96 & Was Reflected In The Books At The Notional Market Value".

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A