Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT

245 ITR 428Supreme Court of India2000#52 most cited

What is Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT authority for?

A business liability that has definitely arisen in an accounting year is deductible even if it needs to be quantified and discharged later, as long as its incurring is certain and can be reasonably estimated.

901

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharat Earth Movers v CIT · 245 ITR 428 · ascertainable liability · unascertainable liability · accrued liability · provision for expenses · deduction · accounting year · future discharge

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
Read the full judgment

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 (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…nt year 2008-09 decided the issue on merits in turn by placing reliance on Tribunal order for A.Y. 2008- 09. The Tribunal allowed relief to the assessee by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported as 245 ITR 428(SC). Dehors the issue of constitutional validity of clause(f) to section 43B of the Act, the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the issue on merits has deleted the addition. Taking into consideration, entirety of facts we respectfully follow the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 and confirm the findings of C…

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…nt year 2008-09 decided the issue on merits in turn by placing reliance on Tribunal order for A.Y. 2008- 09. The Tribunal allowed relief to the assessee by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported as 245 ITR 428(SC). Dehors the issue of constitutional validity of clause(f) to section 43B of the Act, the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the issue on merits has deleted the addition. Taking into consideration, entirety of facts we respectfully follow the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 and confirm the findings of C…

Indiabullas Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

ITA 821/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…vesting of 25% of the options. In this connection, our attention has been invited to paragraphs 9.3.1 to 9.3.6 of the order passed by the tribunal and reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 112 Taxman 61/245 ITR 428 (SC), Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2009]180 Taxman 422/314 ITR 62 (SC). It is also argued that for the purposes of section 37(1) of the Act, it is sufficient if the expenditure has been incurred and therefore, issuance of shares at a discount were the assessee absorbs the difference between price at which it is issued and the market val…

M/S.Pathanmthitta Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Pathanamthitta District Dy. CIT, Circle- 1 Co-op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near KSRTC Bus Stand vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [PAN:AABFP9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 14.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 16.04.2018 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),…

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…nd A reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation. c. 30. The assessing officer further held that there was no scientific or actuarial basis for the provision by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers’ case 245 ITR 428.The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 28 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 31. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had started giving warranty on its decorative paints and industrial products from FY 2006-07. Therefore, in absence of past experience, the As…

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…nd A reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation. c. 30. The assessing officer further held that there was no scientific or actuarial basis for the provision by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers’ case 245 ITR 428.The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 28 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 31. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had started giving warranty on its decorative paints and industrial products from FY 2006-07. Therefore, in absence of past experience, the As…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…nd A reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation. c. 30. The assessing officer further held that there was no scientific or actuarial basis for the provision by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers’ case 245 ITR 428.The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 28 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 31. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had started giving warranty on its decorative paints and industrial products from FY 2006-07. Therefore, in absence of past experience, the As…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…nd A reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation. c. 30. The assessing officer further held that there was no scientific or actuarial basis for the provision by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers’ case 245 ITR 428.The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 28 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 31. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had started giving warranty on its decorative paints and industrial products from FY 2006-07. Therefore, in absence of past experience, the As…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…nd A reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation. c. 30. The assessing officer further held that there was no scientific or actuarial basis for the provision by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers’ case 245 ITR 428.The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 28 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 31. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had started giving warranty on its decorative paints and industrial products from FY 2006-07. Therefore, in absence of past experience, the As…

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E), Mumbai

ITA 2684/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…28. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Rotrock Control India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 held provision on account of warranty in respect of product sold by the assessee as legitimate deduction. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Parth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC) has also decided the issue at hand by returning following findings: “Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the provision made by the assessee company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement earned by the emplo yees of the company, inclusive of the officers…

Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 413/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.413/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Coal India Ltd…………..………...................................................……Appellant Coal Bhawan, Premise No.4, Mar, Plot Af-Iii, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcc3929J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Come Present On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even On Earlier Dates, Despite Several Notices, No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…le to the case at hand since the payment of the PRP has not been made during the year and only a provision is created in the books of accounts by the appellant. 5.9 With respect to the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) and case of Rotorks Control India (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [314 ITR 62] relied upon by the appellant to substantiate that the PRP is not a contingent liability but an ascertained liability, it is observed that those cases are not applicable to the case at hand since those are factually distinguishable which is explained as follows: A. In the case of…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…on superannuation ought to be approved by the appropriate authority and in the absence of that the deduction was not admissible. We find on examination of the order of the Tribunal that its decision was based on Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 112 Taxman 61/245 ITR 428 where the Supreme Court held that the liability was not a contingent liability. In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with beneficiary schemes for encashment of leave of the assessee company Bharat Earth Movers. In this case a scheme for medical benefit post retirement was involved. The tribunal treated the liability as accrued and to be…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 521/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 520/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 519/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 518/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 517/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12…

ACIT, Circle, Pali vs. M/S. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 504/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT [93 TTJ 685 (ITAT (Chen))] Tata Communication Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No 3062/Mum/2003 Dated 05/12…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 54/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sample actuarial report in support of contention that the company is following scientific basis for valuation of the liability. 7.7 In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. He further submitted that since this was a provision and not actual payment, thus cannot be allowed under…

Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 33/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sample actuarial report in support of contention that the company is following scientific basis for valuation of the liability. 7.7 In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. He further submitted that since this was a provision and not actual payment, thus cannot be allowed under…