Section 115JC

Section 115JC — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 115JC, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• M/s Gie Jewells v PCIT High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client is a firm, not a company. It paid alternate minimum tax under s.115JC when it filed its return, along with the accountant's report. The Assessing Officer has charged interest under s.234B for not paying that tax as advance tax. Can advance tax provisions apply to AMT?
  Yes, on this Court's view. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the assessee's appeals, holding that having retained the amount which was supposed to be paid under s.115JC, s.234B was rightly invoked, and that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's treatment of s.115JC on the same footing as s.115JA and s.115JB for the purpose of the advance-tax obligation under s.208.
• M/s DFE Pharma India LLP v DCIT — AMT is charged on total income, so brought-forward losses are set off first ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Assessing Officer accepted nil income under the normal computation after setting off brought-forward losses, but then charged AMT at 18.5 per cent on the net profit without allowing that set-off. Can he compute total income one way for the normal provisions and another way for AMT?
  No. Section 115JC charges the minimum tax on adjusted total income, and adjusted total income starts from the total income, which by s.2(45) is computed after giving effect to the provisions of the Act — including the set-off of brought-forward losses under s.72. The Assessing Officer's contrary interpretation, treating total income as net profit for AMT purposes only, was rejected.
• Technopolis Premises Co-operative Society Ltd v Pr. CIT — s.80P is expressly carved out of the AMT add-back ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Commissioner has revised my co-operative society's assessment under s.263 because AMT on adjusted total income came out higher than the normal tax. The department's working grossed up my total income by the s.80P deduction. Is that right?
  It is not. Clause (i) of s.115JC(2) requires total income to be increased by deductions claimed under any section "other than section 80P" included in Chapter VI-A under heading C. The Assessing Officer's internal working had added back the s.80P deduction of Rs.56,16,242, producing an adjusted total income of Rs.1,13,55,916 instead of the correct Rs.57,39,674; on the correct figure the AMT was lower than the normal tax, so there was no prejudice to the Revenue and no ground for revision.
• M/s Divya Creation v Pr. CIT — AMT under s.115JC is not attracted where the deduction claimed is under s.10A ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Commissioner has revised my assessment under s.263 saying the Assessing Officer never examined AMT. My only deduction is under s.10A. Does s.115JC even apply to me?
  It does not. Section 115JC(2) is a closed list: adjusted total income is the total income increased only by deductions under Chapter VI-A heading C other than s.80P, by a deduction under s.10AA, and by a deduction under s.35AD net of the notional depreciation. A deduction under s.10A is not in that list, so where that is the only claim the provisions of s.115JC are clearly not applicable and the Assessing Officer was under no duty to enquire into them.
• CBDT Circular 5/2024 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  The department says the monetary limit does not apply to my case. Which exceptions let it appeal anyway?
  The listed ones only: constitutional validity of a provision, a Board order, instruction, circular or notification held illegal or ultra vires, information from law enforcement agencies such as the CBI or ED, cases where prosecution has been launched or a conviction recorded, adverse judicial comments against revenue authorities, undisclosed foreign income or assets, organised tax evasion, court-directed appeals, TDS/TCS disputes turning on the nature of the transaction, and questions on the applicability of a DTAA.
• Statutory position — section 80AC and section 115JC: a late return destroys the section 80LA claim, and AMT still bites at nine per cent CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  We missed the section 139(1) due date by a week and the IFSC unit's whole income is covered by section 80LA. Is the deduction still available, and does alternate minimum tax apply on top?
  On the first question, no. Section 80AC provides that for an assessment year commencing on or after 1 April 2018, where any deduction is admissible under any provision of Chapter VI-A under the heading 'C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes', no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a return of his income for that assessment year on or before the due date specified under section 139(1). Section 80LA sits in that Part of Chapter VI-A, so a return filed even a day late costs the whole deduction. On the second, alternate minimum tax under section 115JC does apply to a person other than a company, and section 115JC(2)(i) adds back deductions claimed under any section in that same Part C — but section 115JC(4)(i) substitutes nine per cent for eighteen and one-half per cent where the person is a unit located in an International Financial Services Centre deriving its income solely in convertible foreign exchange.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.