https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325689 The ITAT Kolkata held that the AO erred in mechanically applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) without recording satisfaction under Rule 8D(1) regarding disallowance u/s 14A, and deleted the addition in favor of the assessee. It was affirmed that unabsorbed depreciation or business losses as per books remain available for reduction from book profits u/s 115JB until wiped out by profits, rejecting the AO's view that once adjusted they vanish. Regarding forfeiture of share warrants credited as an extraordinary item, the tribunal ruled it as a capital receipt not taxable u/s 115JB, emphasizing adjustments based on disclosures in notes to accounts per the Supreme Court's Indo Rama decision. The AO was directed to consider such adjustments for computing book profits under section 115JB. All issues were decided in favor of the assessee. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 15:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325689 The ITAT Kolkata held that the AO erred in mechanically applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) without recording satisfaction under Rule 8D(1) regarding disallowance u/s 14A, and deleted the addition in favor of the assessee. It was affirmed that unabsorbed depreciation or business losses as per books remain available for reduction from book profits u/s 115JB until wiped out by profits, rejecting the AO's view that once adjusted they vanish. Regarding forfeiture of share warrants credited as an extraordinary item, the tribunal ruled it as a capital receipt not taxable u/s 115JB, emphasizing adjustments based on disclosures in notes to accounts per the Supreme Court's Indo Rama decision. The AO was directed to consider such adjustments for computing book profits under section 115JB. All issues were decided in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325689