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

ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7390/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaacit, Circle 3(2)(1) Sunjewels Private Limited Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 605/606, 6Th Floor, Multistoried Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Building, Seepz S.O., Andheri (E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 3519 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against Order Dated 08.09.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2016-17. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) & Remitting The Matter Back To The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication, Despite The Clear Restriction Contained In The Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) Ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Permits Such Power Only In Cases Where The Assessment Is Made U/S.144 (Best Judgment Assessment)?" 2. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Having No Jurisdiction To Set Aside Or Remand An Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3), Acted Beyond His Statutory Authority In Law, Thereby Rendering The Impugned Appellate Order Dated 08.09.2025 Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed?" 3. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A), Instead Of Exercising The Powers Vested In Him Under Section 251(1)(A) To Confirm, Reduce, Enhance Or Annual The Assessment, Wrongly Assumed A Power To Restore The Matter To The Assessing Officer, Which Is Ultra Vires The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961."

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

Parekh Marketing Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6563/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2018-19 Parekh Marketing Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Mafatlal House, Income-Tax Circle Backbay, Reclamation, Mumbai Vs. 1(2)(1), - 400020. Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Pan – Aaacp7917J Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Deepak Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri R A Dhyani, (Cit D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In This Case, The Assessee During The Year Under Consideration Being A Company Derives Income From Business & Profession, House Property & Capital Gains Has Declared Its Total Income Of Rs.33,37,07,913/- By Filing Its Return Of Income On 21.11.2018 Which Was Processed By The Cpc Vide Intimation Dated 29.05.2020 Under Section 143 (1) Of The Act, Making Certain 2 Parekh Marketing Limited

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 115Section 143Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 45