Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT

245 ITR 428Supreme Court of India2000#51 most cited
891

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT · Section 37(1) · Section 115JB · mercantile system of accounting · revenue expenditure · deductibility of expenses · book profits · timing of deductions · enduring benefit · Section 35

Also reported as

112 Taxmann 616 SCC 645162 CTR 325

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 195Section 148Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 35dmercantile system of accountingenduring benefitintangible assetssection 40(a)(i)section 35revenue expenditurebook profitssection 37(1)section 115jbamalgamationsection 37

Judgments citing Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…entific basis,) based on actuarial valuation, and is not a contingent upon happening of any future event. The assessee had placed reliance on following decision in support: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in [1969] 73 ITR 53 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 7.2. The Ld.AO did not agree with the content…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…entific basis,) based on actuarial valuation, and is not a contingent upon happening of any future event. The assessee had placed reliance on following decision in support: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in [1969] 73 ITR 53 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 7.2. The Ld.AO did not agree with the content…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…mount accrued/ expenditure incurred is to be allowed as deduc"on, though the same is to be discharged at a future date:  Calcu"a Company Ltd vs CIT: 37 ITR 1 (SC) 66 ITA Nos.- 5624/del/2010 & 5465/Del/2011 HCL Technologies Ltd.  Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT: 245 ITR 428 (SC) It is submi"ed that the said expenditure incurred by the Appellant, by foregoing a receivable in favour of employees on account of employee compensa"on, is clearly allowable as deduc"on under sec"on 37 of the Act. The said expenditure, it is further submi"ed, cannot be disallowed merely because the payment on account of same was not made di…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…mount accrued/ expenditure incurred is to be allowed as deduc"on, though the same is to be discharged at a future date:  Calcu"a Company Ltd vs CIT: 37 ITR 1 (SC) 66 ITA Nos.- 5624/del/2010 & 5465/Del/2011 HCL Technologies Ltd.  Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT: 245 ITR 428 (SC) It is submi"ed that the said expenditure incurred by the Appellant, by foregoing a receivable in favour of employees on account of employee compensa"on, is clearly allowable as deduc"on under sec"on 37 of the Act. The said expenditure, it is further submi"ed, cannot be disallowed merely because the payment on account of same was not made di…

ACIT, GNR CIRCLE, GNR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 94/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. : 839/Ahd/2023 & 94/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sahajanand Laser Assistant Technology Limited Vs Commissioner of 30, GIDC Electronics Income Tax, Estate, Sector-26, Circle-4(1)(1), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad Gujarat-382028 PAN: AAGCS1983B The ACIT, Vs Sahajanand Laser Gandhinagar Circle, Technology Ltd Gandhi Nagar E-30,GIDC, Sector- 26, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-382028 PAN: AAGCS1983B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Ms. Arti N Shah, A.R. Reven…

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. : 839/Ahd/2023 & 94/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sahajanand Laser Assistant Technology Limited Vs Commissioner of 30, GIDC Electronics Income Tax, Estate, Sector-26, Circle-4(1)(1), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad Gujarat-382028 PAN: AAGCS1983B The ACIT, Vs Sahajanand Laser Gandhinagar Circle, Technology Ltd Gandhi Nagar E-30,GIDC, Sector- 26, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-382028 PAN: AAGCS1983B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Ms. Arti N Shah, A.R. Reven…

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-4,, CHENNAI

ITA 3261/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3261/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, No. 2 Dare House, Chennai G.P.O, Parrys, Chennai-600001. V. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pcit, Chennai Room No 301, 3Rd Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से//Assessee By प्रत्योंकों की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, R, Advocate : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit : 25.11.2025 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ("The Act") For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 263Section 80G

…4 :: 8 :: a. DCIT vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 8 March 2022 (Mumbai ITAT). b. DCIT vs. National Insurance Co Ltd in ITA 674/2012 dated 05 August 2016 (Kolkata ITAT). c. Supreme Court judgement in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428. d. Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. V. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). e. Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd v. CIT. Chennai ICA Nos. 3506-3510 of 2009). Further, in the show cause notice issued u/s. 143(3) of the Act the Learned AO has made further Inquiry on the said issue (Refer…

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6703/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) be deleted. 22. We find that the issue relating to allowability of provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428) has authoritatively laid down that where a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the same is allowable as deduction, notwithstanding that the liability is to be discharged at a future date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that – The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting yea…

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

ITA 6702/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…e by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) be deleted. 22. We find that the issue relating to allowability of provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428) has authoritatively laid down that where a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the same is allowable as deduction, notwithstanding that the liability is to be discharged at a future date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that – The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year…

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 6701/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…e by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) be deleted. 22. We find that the issue relating to allowability of provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428) has authoritatively laid down that where a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the same is allowable as deduction, notwithstanding that the liability is to be discharged at a future date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that – The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year…

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 6663/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…e by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) be deleted. 22. We find that the issue relating to allowability of provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428) has authoritatively laid down that where a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the same is allowable as deduction, notwithstanding that the liability is to be discharged at a future date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that – The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year…

NOMURA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2851/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145

…2012-13 into BLD contracts) has already occurred before the Balance Sheet date. Once the liability crystallizes, the next step is its quantification. In this regard, assessee referred to the judicial precedent in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that exact quantification of liability is not necessary for claiming deduction and it would suffice if it could be estimated with reasonable certainty. Hon’ble Court held as follows: "The law is settled; if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed althou…

M/S. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2408/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…has given the direction to the AO for A.Y. 1998-99 vide para 17 and 18 of the said order. The directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced hereunder: "17. No doubt, having regard to the judgement of the Apex Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 which laid down that the liability should have been actually incurred in the year and it should be capable of reasonable ascertainment, the assessee is to prove that such a liability had actually been arrived at that no such ascertainment of liability could be proved by the assessee. To that extent the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with…

HAFFKINE BIO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 5352/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mayur MakadiaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ry was not a contingent liability. It was in respect of the outcome of the decision of the DPE. For this proposition, we draw the support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers us. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 325: (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "If a business liability has definite origin in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be estimated with reasonable certainty…

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 300Section 32(2)

…the Ld.CIT(A) has considered these facts and had recognised that the assessee had got the contract work executed and had received the bills and consequently had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Earth Movers reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) and as the liability had definitely risen the amount had been allowed as expenditure. 6. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR has vehemently opposed the above submissions of the Id. AR. It was submissions the assessee is a company and the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, if at all the assessee could be given the benef…

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

…the Ld.CIT(A) has considered these facts and had recognised that the assessee had got the contract work executed and had received the bills and consequently had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Earth Movers reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) and as the liability had definitely risen the amount had been allowed as expenditure. 6. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR has vehemently opposed the above submissions of the Id. AR. It was submissions the assessee is a company and the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, if at all the assessee could be given the benef…

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 294/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

…the Ld.CIT(A) has considered these facts and had recognised that the assessee had got the contract work executed and had received the bills and consequently had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Earth Movers reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) and as the liability had definitely risen the amount had been allowed as expenditure. 6. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR has vehemently opposed the above submissions of the Id. AR. It was submissions the assessee is a company and the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, if at all the assessee could be given the benef…

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (Α.Υ :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

…the Ld.CIT(A) has considered these facts and had recognised that the assessee had got the contract work executed and had received the bills and consequently had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Earth Movers reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) and as the liability had definitely risen the amount had been allowed as expenditure. 6. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR has vehemently opposed the above submissions of the Id. AR. It was submissions the assessee is a company and the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, if at all the assessee could be given the benef…

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 32(2)

…the Ld.CIT(A) has considered these facts and had recognised that the assessee had got the contract work executed and had received the bills and consequently had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Earth Movers reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) and as the liability had definitely risen the amount had been allowed as expenditure. 6. In reply, the Ld.CIT DR has vehemently opposed the above submissions of the ld. AR. It was submissions the assessee is a company and the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, if at all the assessee could be given the benef…

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 74/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri M.Κ.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

…that the known liabilities should be provided for in the accounts, even though the amount could not be ascertained with certainty. Further, the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (245 ITR 428), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the definite liabilities should be allowed as deduction, although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. However, the AD was not convinced with the said explanations. He was of the view that only ascertained liabilities are allowable as deduction and accordingly disa…

Showing 1–20 of 891 · Page 1 of 45

...