Case Law Details

Case Name : Rain Commodities Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All ITAT (4622) ITAT Hyderabad (268)

Rain Commodities Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad Special Bench)

The assessee credited its P&L A/c with an amount of Rs. 149.77 crores being the profit on sale of assets to its wholly owned subsidiary. As the said profits were not chargeable to tax u/s 47(iv), the assessee took the view that the same had also to be reduced from the “book profits” u/s 115JB. The Special Bench had to consider whether exempt income could be excluded from the computation of “book profits” u/s 115JB. HELD deciding against the assessee:

(i) The AO can alter the “book profit” only in two circumstances (a) if the P&L A/c is not drawn up in accordance with Parts II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act or (b) If accounting policies & standards, method & rate of depreciation have been incorrectly adopted for preparation of the P & L A/c. Except for the said two cases, the AO has no power to alter the net profit shown in the P&L A/c. Under (a), the AO cannot disturb the Net Profit shown by the assessee where there are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation but only a difference of opinion as to whether a particular amount should be properly shown in the P&L A/c or Balance sheet;

(ii) Parts II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act do not permit the exclusion of capital gain from the P & L A/c. The P & L A/c is required to disclose every material feature including credits or receipts and debits or expenses in respect of non-recurring transactions or transactions of an exceptional nature including capital profits (Veekaylal Investments 249 ITR 597 (Bom) followed). Items referred to in the Notes are a part of the P&L A/c (Sain Processing 221 CTR 493 (Del) followed;

(iii) The assessee had included the said capital gains in the P & L A/c and it was not its’ case that same was not includible. The fact that the capital gains was exempt u/s 47(iv) does not mean it can be excluded from the “book profit” because no such exclusion was permitted under the Explanation to s. 115JB. The tax ability of capital gain is relevant only for the purpose of computation of income under the normal provisions and has nothing to do with the computation of “book profits”. {N.J. Jose & Co 217 CTR 479 (Ker) (capital gains exempt u/s 54E) followed};

(iv) The argument that as s. 115JB (4) provides that “save as otherwise provided in this section all other provisions of the Act shall apply” does not mean that the exemption provisions of s. 47(iv) can be read into s. 115JB. This only means that while the computation has to be as per s. 115JB, anything over and above that will be subject to other provisions of the Act. Frig Sales 4 SOT 376 (Mum) overruled);

(v) Accordingly, in the absence of any provision for exclusion of exempted capital gain in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB, the assessee is not entitled to the exclusion claimed.

Note: Though the SB observed that it was not necessary for it to dwell upon a situation where the assessee has directly credited the profit on sale of asset to a reserve Account, it referred with approval to Bombay Diamond Co 33 DTR 59 where even profits not credited to the P&L A/c were held includible in Book ProfitsGrowth Avenue approved Sutlej Cotton Mills 45 ITD 22 (Cal) (SB) which held that exempt capital gains had to be reduced from book profits was held not to be good law.

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (26351)
Type : Judiciary (10614)
Tags : Book Profit (62) ITAT Judgments (4803)

2 responses to “MAT u/s.115JB is payable even on exempt income”

  1. V.S. Surve says:

    Income like Agricultural Income, Dividend income which are exempt from Income Tax, then how the MAT applicable on such Income.

  2. CA SURENDRA KUMAR RAKHECHA says:

    Law is made on the basis of some concepts.

    The introduction of section 115JB was made when it was seen that despite earning “regular profits” by the companies; no income-tax is paid by them.

    The introduction of section 47(iv) is there because government seeks to make the industrial units cost competitive and that is why profits earned on amalgamation and mergers were not made taxable as these are not regarded as transfer.

    The other provisions of section 47 are on the same line.

    There being no transfer; how one will compute capital gains under Income-Tax Act ?

    Whether one would be required to pay MAT if there is agricultural income and/or Dividend income shown in the Profit and Loss Account ?

    Can legislature impose taxes in this way on Agricultural Income just because this income has to be shown in Profit and Loss Account ? Whether the same is applicable if dividend in included in Profit and Loss Account ?

    Can one again levy tax the Dividend even though dividend distribution tax has already been paid ?

    In my opinion; this was not the intention of the legilation to tax those income which were never to be taxed.

    The matter is under litigation just because Section 115JB (1) starts with : Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act,……..

    But one should go into the history why this section was introduced.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *