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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer

In the result, the ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 936/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 936/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke The Acit M/S. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Circle – 2 Vs. Vidyut Bhawan, Ajmer Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 8526 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 943/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke M/S. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd The Acit Vs. Vidyut Bhawan, Circle – 2 Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Ajmer Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 8526 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Sunil Porwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09 /01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 21-09-2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271 (1) ( C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 The Acit, Circle – 2, Ajmer Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer 2.1 In The Scrutiny Assessment Completed On 28-03-2013, The Ao Inter

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

D.C.I.T., Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……...........…….…….....…....Appellant Vs. M/S. Akg Finvest Ltd…………………………………………..................................……………..…......Respondent 1St Floor 37A, Southern Avenue (Renamed As Dr. Meghnad Saha Sarani) Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Aadca 8306 P] Appearances By: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 16/10/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Have Heard Rival Contentions. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:- 3. The Assessee Is A Non-Banking Financial Company. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 29.09.2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,50,430/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2013 Determining Total Income At Rs.6,37,17,496/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Granted Part Relief. 4. Aggrieved The Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us On The Following Grounds:- “(I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Treating The Frequent Sales & Purchases Of The Assessee Company As Investment Income & Not Business Income.

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250