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 Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Jray Mcdermott Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1371/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1371/Mds/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Jray Mcdermott Engineering Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. Services Pvt. Ltd., Rmz Millenia Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Business Park, 6Th Floor, Campus 3B, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai – 34. No. 143, Dr. Mgr Road, Perungudi, Chennai 600 0096. [Pan:Aabcj6787H] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Ruby George, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 05.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Consider The Payment Of Surcharge & Education Cess For The Purpose Of Mat Credit.

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 115J

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gran Electronics P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3518/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3518/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Acit 3(1)(2) M/S. Gran Electronics R.No 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, C-171, Mittal Court, V. Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach0383A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By : Shri. Mayank Chauhan & Shri. Bhupendra Karkhanis सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3518/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 27.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 10.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.3518/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Mayank Chauhan &For Respondent: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward -4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.361/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward 4(1), Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm0703Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 06.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Also Confirming The Addition Of ₹.3,10,33,094/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act.

For Respondent: Ms. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148