Case Law
Subject : Tax Law - Direct Taxation
Ahmedabad, May 2, 2025:
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad “B” Bench, comprising Dr.
The dispute involved multiple appeals filed by the Revenue (ACIT, Anand Circle) and one appeal by the Assessee (NDDB) concerning AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14. The core issue revolved around whether NDDB, a statutory corporation established under the National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987, could be subjected to MAT under Section 115JB. Initially, the AO completed assessments for these years without applying MAT. However, the AO later passed rectification orders under Section 154, treating the non-application of MAT as a "mistake apparent from record" and proceeded to compute MAT liability on NDDB's book profits. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had initially allowed NDDB's appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13, holding the issue debatable and not rectifiable under Section 154, but upheld the MAT application for AY 2013-14 citing the 2012 amendment.
Assessee (NDDB): * NDDB is a statutory body, not a company incorporated under the Companies Act. * Section 115JB specifically applies to companies that prepare their Profit & Loss accounts according to the Companies Act (erstwhile Schedule VI, now Schedule III). NDDB prepares its accounts as mandated by the NDDB Act, 1987 (Sections 27 & 28). * The applicability of MAT to statutory corporations is a highly debatable issue, involving interpretation of law, and thus cannot be addressed through rectification under Section 154, which is reserved for obvious errors. * Relied on the Supreme Court's decision confirming the Kerala High Court's ruling in Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) , where MAT was held inapplicable to KSEB, another statutory body. * Even post the Finance Act 2012 amendment (effective AY 2013-14), MAT remains inapplicable, citing the Mumbai ITAT Special Bench ruling in Union Bank of India and Delhi High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd .
Revenue (ACIT): * NDDB is an "Indian Company" as per Section 2(26)(ia) of the IT Act (being a corporation established under a Central Act) and files returns as a "Company". * Failure to levy MAT was a clear mistake apparent from the record, justifying rectification under Section 154. * The Finance Act 2012 amendment broadened the scope of Section 115JB to include entities like NDDB that prepare accounts under their governing statutes.
The ITAT meticulously analyzed the legal provisions, precedents, and the nature of NDDB.
1. Rectification u/s 154 Impermissible (AY 2010-11 to 2012-13): * The Tribunal affirmed that whether MAT applies to a statutory body like NDDB, which doesn't follow Companies Act accounting norms, is inherently debatable. * Quoting the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Bros. (1971) , the ITAT reiterated that Section 154 cannot be used for issues requiring "long-drawn reasoning process" or where interpretations differ. * Applying MAT via rectification when it wasn't applied initially constitutes a change of opinion, which is outside the scope of Section 154. * The ITAT cited the KSEB case, stating: "the fiction fixed under section 115JB cannot be pressed into service against the assessee while making the assessment..." * Therefore, the rectification orders for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were deemed "exfacie illegal" and "without jurisdiction".
2. MAT Inapplicable Even Post-Amendment (AY 2013-14): * The ITAT disagreed with the CIT(A)'s view that the Finance Act 2012 amendment made MAT applicable to NDDB. * The Tribunal heavily relied on the Mumbai ITAT Special Bench decision in Union Bank of India [2024] 166 taxmann.com 207 , which held: > "clause (b) to sub section (2) of section 115JB... inserted by Finance Act, 2012... are not applicable to the banks constituted as 'corresponding new bank'... and not registered under Companies Act... therefore, the provision of Section 115JB cannot be applied..." * The ITAT reasoned that the term "company" in Section 115JB refers to entities governed by the Companies Act. While NDDB is deemed an "Indian Company" under Section 2(26)(ia) for general IT Act purposes, this deeming fiction doesn't extend to making it a "company" for the specific requirements of Section 115JB, which are intrinsically linked to Companies Act accounting. * The core principle is that the computation mechanism under Section 115JB fails if the accounts are not prepared as per the Companies Act (or as specified under Section 129(1) for specific classes of Companies Act registered entities like banking, insurance, electricity). * The Tribunal concluded: "MAT is not leviable even under the post amendment by Finance Act 2012 effective from 01.04.2013 by insertion of clause (b) to section 115JB(2) of the Act to a Statutory Corporation created under the Central Act."
Based on the detailed reasoning, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench:
* Dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos: 733, 734, 755, 756, 757, 1059/Ahd/2023) for AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14.
* Allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, NDDB (ITA No: 1052/Ahd/2023) for AY 2013-14, quashing the rectification order applying MAT.
* Dismissed the Cross Objections filed by NDDB (C.O. Nos: 2 & 3/Ahd/2024) for AY 2012-13 as consequential.
This ruling provides crucial clarity that statutory corporations like NDDB, established and governed by their specific Acts and not registered under the Companies Act, fall outside the purview of MAT provisions under Section 115JB, irrespective of the 2012 amendment.
#MAT #Section115JB #StatutoryCorporation #IncomeTaxAppellateTribunal
MP HC Directs Magistrate Probe and Police Affidavits on Alleged Illegal Detention in Cross-State Arrest: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
30 Apr 2026
Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Film Leak
30 Apr 2026
Pendency of EP Against One Judgment Debtor No Bar to Proceed Against Guarantor: Andhra Pradesh High Court
30 Apr 2026
PIL Dismissed with ₹25K Costs for Concealing Credentials & Pending Criminal Cases: Allahabad High Court
30 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Orders Action Against Noida Bar Strikes
30 Apr 2026
No Sane Person De-Boards Running Train: Gujarat HC Upholds Rs 8 Lakh Compensation under Section 124A Railways Act
30 Apr 2026
Failure to Frame Specific Issues Under Section 13 HMA Leads to 'Ballpark Assessment': Patna High Court Remands Divorce Case
30 Apr 2026
Physical Assault and Threats Creating Psychological Fear Attract Section 8 Goa Children's Act: Bombay HC at Goa Refuses FIR Quashing
30 Apr 2026
Habeas Corpus Inapplicable to Child Custody Disputes Needing Detailed Welfare Inquiry: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Age Restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) Surrogacy Act Not Retrospective for Pre-2022 Couples: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.