Section 115O of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 115O is CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. (335 ITR 117), cited in 112 of the 68 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115O

CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.
335 ITR 117 · 2011 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable for R&D expenditure incurred even if the approval from the DSIR is granted in a subsequent assessment year, provided the application for approval was made in time. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if the approval is based on verification of details submitted.

CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
72 Taxmann.com 325 · 2016 · High Court
59
citing judgments

Profits of an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under sections 80-I, 80IB, or 80IC are computed without allocating common corporate or head office expenses that lack a direct nexus to the unit's industrial activity.

Dy. CIT v. Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri
258 ITR 785 · 2002 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Income derived from the sale of scrap generated during the manufacturing process is eligible for deduction under sections 80IB and 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
22 Taxmann.com 96 · 2012 · ITAT
25
citing judgments

Provisions for doubtful debts are not part of operating costs and are considered non-operating in nature when calculating operating profit. Only receipts and expenditures directly related to determining profit should be included.

Thyssenkrupp Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
33 Taxmann.com 107 · 2013 · ITAT
25
citing judgments

Provisions for doubtful debts are non-operating in nature and should not be included in operating profit computation. Only receipts and expenditures directly related to determining profit are considered for operating profit.

Genpact India Private Limited v. DCIT
419 ITR 440 · 2019 · Supreme Court
17
citing judgments

Appeals challenging the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under section 115O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be filed specifically challenging such levy. Appeals filed with significant delays and without satisfactory explanation for the delay are liable to be dismissed in limine.

ACIT v. Meco Instruments (P.) Ltd.
7 Taxmann.com 24 · 2010 · ITAT
9
citing judgments
CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
259 Taxmann 218 · 2018 · Supreme Court
6
citing judgments
Bombay in Colorcon Asia (P.). Ltd. v. JCIT
181 Taxmann.com 301 · 2025 · High Court
4
citing judgments
CITG v. Philip Morris Services India, SA
102 Taxmann.com 376 · 2019 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 115O

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A