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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 870/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal(Physicalhearing) Small Industries Development Bank Dcit, Central Circle – 3(3)(2), Of India, Swavalamban Bhawan, Vs Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan, C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla M.K. Marg, New Marine Lines, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aabcs3480N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle – 3(3)(1), Small Industries Development Bank Of Mumbai Vs India, Swavalamban Bhawan, C-11, 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. East, Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aabcs3480N] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri Sajit V Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution 26.12.2025 Date Of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.09.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfacdated 13.11.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer In Disallowing Claim Of Rs.60,79,783/-, Being Proportionate Amortised Amount Of Lease Premium Paid To Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority In Respect Of Leasehold Land & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder.

Section 115JSection 158ASection 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3)2, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 9170/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal(Physicalhearing) Small Industries Development Bank Dcit, Central Circle – 3(3)(2), Of India, Swavalamban Bhawan, Vs Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan, C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla M.K. Marg, New Marine Lines, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aabcs3480N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle – 3(3)(1), Small Industries Development Bank Of Mumbai Vs India, Swavalamban Bhawan, C-11, 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. East, Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aabcs3480N] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri Sajit V Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution 26.12.2025 Date Of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.09.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfacdated 13.11.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer In Disallowing Claim Of Rs.60,79,783/-, Being Proportionate Amortised Amount Of Lease Premium Paid To Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority In Respect Of Leasehold Land & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder.

Section 115JSection 158ASection 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)