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 367,181 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nokia Siemens Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 3202/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit Nokia Siemens Networks India Pvt. Ltd. 10Th Floor, Circle – 13 (1) Vs Raheja Towers, 26-27, M. New Delhi G. Road Bangalore Pan No.Aabcs9839H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Addl. Cit Special Range- 6 Nokia Solutions & New Delhi Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Vs 1507, Regus Business Centre, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan No.Aaccn3871F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nokia Solutions & Networks Addl. Cit Range-18 India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly New Delhi Vs Known As Nokia Siemes Networks Pvt. Ltd. ) 7Th Floor, Building 9A, Dlf Cyber City, Sector-25A, Gurgaon – 122002 Pan No.Aaccn3871F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 411

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 DCIT Nokia Siemens Networks India Pvt. Ltd. 10th Floor, Circle – 13 (1) Vs Raheja Towers, 26-27, M. New Delhi G. Road Bangalore PAN No.AABCS9839H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Addl. CIT Special Range- 6 Nokia Solutions & New Delhi Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Vs 1507, Regus Business Centre, EROS Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 PAN No.AACCN3871F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nokia Solution…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 845/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…preme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee for warranty claims on the basis of past experience is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Act. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, 245 ITR 428, the Supreme Court held that where the assessee has incurred expenditure which is more than the provision for warranty obligation made in the books of account, it cannot be said that the provision made by the assessee is not capable of being estimated with the reasonable certainty though actual quantification was not possible and therefore, the T…

M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 399/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…preme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee for warranty claims on the basis of past experience is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Act. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, 245 ITR 428, the Supreme Court held that where the assessee has incurred expenditure which is more than the provision for warranty obligation made in the books of account, it cannot be said that the provision made by the assessee is not capable of being estimated with the reasonable certainty though actual quantification was not possible and therefore, the T…

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1719/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbreach Candy Hospital Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, 60A, Bhulabhai Exemption Ward (1)(1) Desai Road, Cumballa Hill 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal S.O, Mumbai – 400026 Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhat Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 21.03.2023 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Via) 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Denying The Claim Of The Appellant For Grant Of Exemption Under Section 10(23Cx(Via) Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Following The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Bombay High Court To Grant Exemption Under Section 10(23Cxvia) Pursuant To Ad-Interim Relief Granted To The Appellant Vide Order Dated 17 January 2011. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Followed Directions Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court. Provision For Gratuity To Be Treated As ‘Application Of Income’

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhatFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 Breach Candy Hospital Trust Vs. ITO Exemption Ward (1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Breach Candy Hospital Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, 60A, Bhulabhai Exemption Ward (1)(1) Desai Road, Cumballa Hill 506, 5th Floor, Piramal S.O, Mumbai – 400026 Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATB0214D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Shri Fenil Bhat Respondent by : S. Srinivasu Date of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 30.08.2023 आदेश / O R D…

DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 9377/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: him. 2.1 That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law in not giving a suitable direction to the AO follow the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Exide Industries Limited. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in neither admitting nor deciding the admissibility of claim of the appellant in respect of deduction of Rs.130.95 crore, pursuant to the order of the Apex Court dated 06/12/2018, being excess interest income offered for tax in the return of income by the ap

For Appellant: Shri Kamal K. Jaithley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 14A

…dled with expenditure in respect of the service of employees, which were rendered during active employment i.e. pre-retirement. Further, during the hearing, the AR of the appellant relied on the decision of the apex court in Bharat Earth Movers vs.CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC), in this regard. 6.3 From the above, it is observed that the appellant's claim of deduction towards provision for post-retirement medical benefits in respect of its serving and retired employees is albeit a provision in its books of account and not incurred during the relevant PY, yet this provision is based upon the actuarial certificate a…

The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 8817/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: him. 2.1 That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law in not giving a suitable direction to the AO follow the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Exide Industries Limited. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in neither admitting nor deciding the admissibility of claim of the appellant in respect of deduction of Rs.130.95 crore, pursuant to the order of the Apex Court dated 06/12/2018, being excess interest income offered for tax in the return of income by the ap

For Appellant: Shri Kamal K. Jaithley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 14A

…dled with expenditure in respect of the service of employees, which were rendered during active employment i.e. pre-retirement. Further, during the hearing, the AR of the appellant relied on the decision of the apex court in Bharat Earth Movers vs.CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC), in this regard. 6.3 From the above, it is observed that the appellant's claim of deduction towards provision for post-retirement medical benefits in respect of its serving and retired employees is albeit a provision in its books of account and not incurred during the relevant PY, yet this provision is based upon the actuarial certificate a…

M.P.Birla Institute of Fundamental Reserch., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Exemption-Cir-1(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 479/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 478 & 479/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M. P. Birla Institute of Vs. DCIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), Fundamental Research Kolkata (PAN: AAATT 3358 C) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 28.06.2023 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 11.08.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Kush Kanodia, A.R "नधा"/रती…

M.P.Birla Institute of Fundamental Reserch., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Exemption-Cir-1(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 478/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 478 & 479/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M. P. Birla Institute of Vs. DCIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), Fundamental Research Kolkata (PAN: AAATT 3358 C) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 28.06.2023 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 11.08.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Kush Kanodia, A.R "नधा"/रती…

Finquest Securities Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 250Section 36(2)

…identified and, therefore, should be allowed in the year under consideration. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd vs CIT (1955) 27 ITR 700 (Bom) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC). 9 ITA 623/Mum/2023 Finquest Securities Pvt Ltd 7. The Ld.DR vehemently argued that the assessee has not provided enough evidences to show that the loss / fraudulent transaction have indeed happened. The Ld.DR drew our attention to the modus operandi of the fraudulent transaction as submitted by the assessee where it has been stated that th…

Kaya Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) ITO(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 230/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.230 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2010-11) Kaya Ltd. 23/C/2Nd Floor/Mahal Industrial Estate Marks, Mahakali Caves Road, Near Paper Box Lane, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aacck-1045-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, Delhi . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt.Anne Varghese सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt.Anne Varghese

…o meet ascertained liability is allowable. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to Accounting Standard-4 (AS-4) in this regard. To further support his contentions he placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC). 3 4. Per contra, Smt.Anne Varghese representing the Department vehemently supported the order of CIT(A). The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee is claiming provision in respect of liability that has not crystallized yet. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the assessment order, wherein the Assessing Off…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…debenture holder to receive the payment upfront, liability of the assessee to make the payment in that very year, on exercising of this option, has arisen and this liability was to pay the interest @ Rs. 55 per debenture. In Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC), this Court had categorically held that if a business liability has arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed even if such a liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. Following passage from the aforesaid judgment is worth a quote: "The law is settled: if a business liability has d…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ore, definitely arisen during the impugned assessment year although it has to be discharged on a future date. The case of the assessee, in our view, is duly covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] (245 ITR 428) in which it was held as under: “………………… ……………………” The provision of section 43B will not apply to the same as this does not represent the sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to pension fund. We, therefore, respectfully, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court delete the disallowance” Hence, this issue is also…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ore, definitely arisen during the impugned assessment year although it has to be discharged on a future date. The case of the assessee, in our view, is duly covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] (245 ITR 428) in which it was held as under: “………………… ……………………” The provision of section 43B will not apply to the same as this does not represent the sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to pension fund. We, therefore, respectfully, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court delete the disallowance” Hence, this issue is also…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3574/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaaddl. Cit Vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd. Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, Room No. 352, Lodhi Road, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

…Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. 292 ITR 4 70, wherein the Hon ’ble Court struck down the provisions of Section 438(f), holding the same as arbitrary in nature, unconscionable and de hors the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. It was not a mistake apparent from record and further the issue in dispute is still pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence it is not a case falling within the purview of Section 154 of the Act, in view of various judicial pronouncements. It is well settled proposition of law that debatable issue and the issue requiring…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncl Green Habitats Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1790/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri M. Naveen Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…e same Para of this report, some important points to be kept in mind with regard to cash flow projections are also noted. At this point, we feel it proper to take note of two judgments of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Bharat earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62. In the first case, the issue in dispute was regarding estimation of future liability of leave encashment and it was held by Hon'ble apex court in this case that the liability should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may no…

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 80HSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 94(7)

…observations of the Special Bench in this regard, inter alia, are as follows (page 623 of 25 ITR (Trib)) : "When we consider the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable with full force to the deductibility of the discount on incurring of liability on the rendition of service by the employees. The factum of the employees becoming entitled to Page No. | 25 ITA NO. 2908 & 4108/MUM/2008 (…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2937/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 18

…gns or retired from the services. We also find that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Excide Industries Ltd. (supra) has struck down Sec. 43B(f) being arbitrary, unconscionable and dehors the Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. It is relevant to state that the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs Universal Medicare in ITA No. 6191/M/08, has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers and directed the AO to allow the amounts so claimed. Respectfully following the afore discussed decisions, we direct the AO to allow the claim of provis…

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

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

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…observations of the Special Bench in this regard, inter alia, are as follows (page 623 of 25 ITR (Trib)) : "When we consider the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable with full force to the deductibility of the discount on incurring of liability on the rendition of service by the employees. The factum of the employees becoming entitled to exercise options at the end of the vesting pe…

DCIT (E) Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 626/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Suneja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(a)

…ed that as per the Accounting Standard notified by the Government, it was incumbent upon the assessee to make provisions for all known liabilities. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT 112 Taxmann 61 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insilco Limited in ITA 873/2008. 4. The ld. CIT(A) held that the contention of the assessee an actuarial valuation report with respect to gratuity and leave encashment was available with the assessee but could not be produced as it was not sought for production before the AO. 5. Heard th…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 48 of 60 of expenditure under s. 37(1). Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd., v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deduction for a business liability which has arisen during a particular year should be allowed in that year in its entirety. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned AO therefore erred in disallowing the same and he prayed that the said disallowance may be deleted as the same is allowable on the facts and circum…