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

Centum Learning Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

In the result, for the statistical purposes, this appeal is

ITA 5067/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 37(1)

…come tax (Appeals) has erred in disregarding the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Biocon Limited 144 ITD 21 (SB) and in not appreciating the law of land as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earthmovers 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd. 314 ITR 62 (SC) in respect of allowability of accrued liability upto the end of financial year even though such amount of liability is finally quantified and payable in future. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals…

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

…concerned, the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the liability of the assessee is certain and not contingent and, in this regard, reference was made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT 245 ITR 248 (SC). We are of the view that the liability in question was not certain and was contingent. No basis for the claim being certan has been given by the assessee, especially when the payment itself is voluntary and in the nature of an incentive. The fact that part of the sum claimed as deduction was revised in the subsequent year also lends credence…

Mukand Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA no 5879/M/2019 is dismissed and ITA

ITA 1626/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel. ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra.DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…. However, he has not paid the advance tax as per the provisions existing prior to the amendment. Hence, he is liable to pay interest on the said amount deducting the difference of the tax paid. The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vv. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428/1)2 Taxman 61] (SC) has held that an assessee who is maintaining the accounts on mercantile system, a liability already accrued, though to be discharged at a future date, would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of his business, regard being had to the accepted principles of commercial practice and accountancy. It is no…

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…the ground for allowability of deduction quantification may not be possible. In such cases the liability is present liability to be discharged in future and cannot be considered as contingent or unascertained liability. 1. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantificat…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1199/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…the ground for allowability of deduction quantification may not be possible. In such cases the liability is present liability to be discharged in future and cannot be considered as contingent or unascertained liability. 1. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantificat…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2174/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…the ground for allowability of deduction quantification may not be possible. In such cases the liability is present liability to be discharged in future and cannot be considered as contingent or unascertained liability. 1. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantificat…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2173/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…the ground for allowability of deduction quantification may not be possible. In such cases the liability is present liability to be discharged in future and cannot be considered as contingent or unascertained liability. 1. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantificat…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1583/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…the ground for allowability of deduction quantification may not be possible. In such cases the liability is present liability to be discharged in future and cannot be considered as contingent or unascertained liability. 1. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantificat…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…the ground for allowability of deduction quantification may not be possible. In such cases the liability is present liability to be discharged in future and cannot be considered as contingent or unascertained liability. 1. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantificat…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1581/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…the ground for allowability of deduction quantification may not be possible. In such cases the liability is present liability to be discharged in future and cannot be considered as contingent or unascertained liability. 1. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantificat…

M/S. Jeans Knit Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80J

…ot be added for the purpose of computing the book profits u/s.115JB. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Curt in the case of CIT VS. Kirloskar Systems Ltd, (2013) 40 Taxmann.com 124 (Kar) held that “The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 has held that an assessee who is Page 24 of 27 maintaining the account on mercantile System, a liability already accrued, though to be discharged at a future date, would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of business, regard being had to the accepted principle of commercial practice and accountancy. It is not as if suc…

Helti India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 502/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Helti India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 6Th Floor, Building 8, Tower C, Special Range-4, Dlf Cyber City, Phase 3, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaach3583Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…atuity would be allowed in the profit and loss account when additional conditions stated therein were also satisfied. [See decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC)] 15. Again in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), it has been observed:- "The law is settled: If a business liability has definitely arisen 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 capable of being estimated with reason…

Trinity Cleantech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissiner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 471/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessement Year : 2018-19 M/S. Trinity Cleantech Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan: Aaect3792K Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri P.Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By Ms. P. Sumitha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2022 O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M:

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…he claim of the assessee was in violation of section 43B of the Act. 4. AT the outset, the Ld.AR pointed out that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC). The Ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of Ld.AR. 5. After hearing both the sides, I find merit in the argument of the Ld.AR. The Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision cited herein above held the question framed “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for meeting the liability 3 of encashment of earned…

Deutsche Cib Centre P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2179/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 37

…to employees stock options expenses have been specifically dealt by Special Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in Biocon Ltd. (supra). Special Bench of Tribunal after considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 and Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 observed as under: “9.3.5 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 (supra) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. (supra), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable wit…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.492/Bang/2015 & 556/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (formerly Cambridge Solutions of Income Tax, Limited), Circle 7(1)(2), Plot No.13, 14, 15, SJR iPark, Bangalore. EPIP Industrial Area, Phase-I, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AAFCS 9303L APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.459/Bang/2015 & 402/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Xchanging Solutio…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.492/Bang/2015 & 556/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (formerly Cambridge Solutions of Income Tax, Limited), Circle 7(1)(2), Plot No.13, 14, 15, SJR iPark, Bangalore. EPIP Industrial Area, Phase-I, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AAFCS 9303L APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.459/Bang/2015 & 402/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Xchanging Solutio…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.492/Bang/2015 & 556/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (formerly Cambridge Solutions of Income Tax, Limited), Circle 7(1)(2), Plot No.13, 14, 15, SJR iPark, Bangalore. EPIP Industrial Area, Phase-I, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AAFCS 9303L APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.459/Bang/2015 & 402/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Xchanging Solutio…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.492/Bang/2015 & 556/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (formerly Cambridge Solutions of Income Tax, Limited), Circle 7(1)(2), Plot No.13, 14, 15, SJR iPark, Bangalore. EPIP Industrial Area, Phase-I, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AAFCS 9303L APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.459/Bang/2015 & 402/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Xchanging Solutio…

ITO WD 11(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Salient Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3059/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…e various contentions of the assessee, the M/s. Salient Traders Pvt. Ltd., assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions before the ld. CIT(A):- a) The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428(SC) b) The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor of India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 312 ITR 254. c) The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 among others. 3.10. The assessee also submitted that against various provisions made, it has in…

Tremco Roffing & Facility Services Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3350/CHNY/2018[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3350/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Tremco Roofing & Facility The Asst. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.60, B-1, First Floor, Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), Ganesh Towers, First Avenue, Chennai. 100 Feet Road, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. [Pan: Aadct 5389H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Farookh Irani, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai In I.T.A No.85/2016-17 Dated 26.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Based On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tremco Roofing & Facility Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant') Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 26 September 2018

For Appellant: Shri Farookh Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3350/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Tremco Roofing & Facility The Asst. Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.60, B-1, First Floor, Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), Ganesh Towers, First Avenue, Chennai. 100 Feet Road, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. [PAN: AADCT 5389H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appe…