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

Tata Automcomp Systems Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 346/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Tata Autocomp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 346/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tata Autocomp Systems The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer House, 24, Homi Mody Unit)-2, बनाम/ Street, Fort, Vs. Mummbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaact1848E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5683/Mum/2015 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Autocomp Systems Income Tax, (Large Limited, Taxpayer Unit)-2, World Bombay House, 24, Homi बनाम/ Trade Centre, Centre -1 , Mody Street, Fort, Vs. 29Th Floor Cuffe Parade, Mummbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16 (1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4321/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Acit-16(1), M/S United Home Entertainment Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Marg, 4Th Floor, Peninsula Tower 1, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/S United Home Entertainment The Asst.Cit-16(1), Pvt. Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Bldg. No. 14, Solitaire, Mumbai - 400020 Corporate Park, Vs. Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (Ars) Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Order Dated 12.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (For Short ‘The Cit (A)’), Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 37Section 40

United Home Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Acit-16(1), M/S United Home Entertainment Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Marg, 4Th Floor, Peninsula Tower 1, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/S United Home Entertainment The Asst.Cit-16(1), Pvt. Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Bldg. No. 14, Solitaire, Mumbai - 400020 Corporate Park, Vs. Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (Ars) Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Order Dated 12.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (For Short ‘The Cit (A)’), Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 37Section 40