Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tax Tribunal Clarifies MAT Computation Under Section 115JB, Preventing Double Taxation of Book Profits</h1> <h3>ACC Limited. Versus ACIT, Central Circle – 3 (4), Mumbai</h3> ACC Limited. Versus ACIT, Central Circle – 3 (4), Mumbai - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:(a) Whether the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and bad in law.(b) Whether the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act is void ab initio for being passed without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard regarding various additions made in the order.(c) Whether the addition of Rs. 558.55 crores on account of provision for taxation while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act is justified or whether the entire adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) should be deleted.(d) Whether the assessee was denied the right to a video hearing before adjudication, thereby causing prejudice.Among these, the principal substantive issue pertains to the correctness of the addition made on account of provision for taxation while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (c): Addition on account of provision for taxation while computing book profit under section 115JBRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act provides for the computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on book profits of companies. Explanation 1 to section 115JB clarifies the adjustments to be made to the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit. The provision mandates certain additions and deductions to arrive at the book profit, including the treatment of tax expenses. The principle is that tax expenses which do not represent actual cash outflow or are adjustments of earlier years should be excluded to avoid double taxation.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the facts that the assessee had declared a total income under normal provisions and under section 115JB. The assessee's revised return showed a current tax provision of Rs. 578.79 crore, which included tax adjustments of earlier years amounting to Rs. 500.63 crore and deferred tax charge of Rs. 28.96 crore. The assessee contended that the net tax expense to be added back to book profit under section 115JB was only Rs. 49.20 crore (578.79 crore less 500.63 crore less 28.96 crore).The AO, however, treated the entire Rs. 578.79 crore as provision for taxation and added the full amount to book profit, resulting in double addition of Rs. 500.63 crore which had already been disallowed in earlier years.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal reviewed the profit and loss account and the computation of book profit supported by Form No. 29B issued by an independent Chartered Accountant. It found that the current tax liability for the year was Rs. 78.16 crore and deferred tax Rs. 28.96 crore, confirming the assessee's claim that only Rs. 49.20 crore was the net tax expense for the year.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire Rs. 578.79 crore by the AO was erroneous as it failed to exclude the tax adjustment of earlier years, leading to double taxation. The deferred tax charge also should not be added while computing book profit under section 115JB. Therefore, only the net tax expense of Rs. 49.20 crore should be added under Explanation 1 to section 115JB.Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's argument that the tax adjustment for earlier years had already been taxed and hence should not be added again was accepted. The Tribunal rejected the AO's approach of adding the entire provision for taxation without netting off earlier adjustments and deferred tax charges. The learned CIT(A)'s upholding of the addition of Rs. 558.55 crore was also found erroneous and was set aside.Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee to restrict the addition on account of provision for taxation to Rs. 49.20 crore, directing the AO to amend the computation accordingly.Issues (a), (b), and (d): Validity of CIT(A) order, intimation under section 143(1), and denial of video hearingThese grounds raised by the assessee were not substantively adjudicated upon as the Tribunal found them to be rendered academic in view of the decision on the principal issue regarding the tax provision addition. Hence, these grounds were left open without any determination.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning on the principal issue is preserved verbatim:'It is evident that the amount of Rs. 500.63 being the tax adjustment of earlier years, which was disallowed in earlier years while computing the income of the assessee, was not reduced in the year under consideration, thereby resulting in the double addition of the same amount. Therefore, we find merits in the submissions of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 500.63 crore being the tax adjustment for earlier years should be reduced from the current tax and only the balance amount being the net tax expenditure can be added under Explanation - 1 to section 115-JB of the Act. We also do not find any merits in the addition of deferred tax charge amounting to Rs. 28.96 crore by the learned CIT(A), and we are of the considered view that the same is also required to be reduced for computing total tax expenses for the year under consideration.'Core principles established include:The provision for taxation added back to book profit under section 115JB must represent the net tax expense for the year, excluding tax adjustments for earlier years already taxed, to avoid double taxation.Deferred tax charges are not to be added while computing book profit under section 115JB.The AO's mechanical addition of the entire tax provision without proper adjustment is impermissible.Final determinations on the principal issue:The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) of Rs. 558.55 crore on account of provision for taxation is set aside.The addition to book profit under section 115JB is restricted to Rs. 49.20 crore, representing the net tax expense for the year.The appeal filed by the assessee on this ground is allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found