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 367,282 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

Religare Finvest Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.Ciy, Range-21, New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rendered by the employees and therefore, it is a liability in presenting and definitely in the accounting year. 11.7 The learned Counsel in support of the contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428. 11.8 The Counsel alternatively submitted that if the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld, the Assessing Officer may be directed for allowing the amount in the subsequent year. Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that as far as amount of reversal of provision is concerned, the assessee has already offered for tax a sum of R…

M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6474/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rendered by the employees and therefore, it is a liability in presenting and definitely in the accounting year. 11.7 The learned Counsel in support of the contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428. 11.8 The Counsel alternatively submitted that if the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld, the Assessing Officer may be directed for allowing the amount in the subsequent year. Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that as far as amount of reversal of provision is concerned, the assessee has already offered for tax a sum of R…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5872/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rendered by the employees and therefore, it is a liability in presenting and definitely in the accounting year. 11.7 The learned Counsel in support of the contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428. 11.8 The Counsel alternatively submitted that if the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld, the Assessing Officer may be directed for allowing the amount in the subsequent year. Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that as far as amount of reversal of provision is concerned, the assessee has already offered for tax a sum of R…

DCIT, Circle- 18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Electrical Supply Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4684/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Pramita M. Biswa, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Sh. Ashish
Section 60

…ained liability that has been crystallized and discharged by the assessee during the year and the same could not be named as an uncertain provision. He placed the reliance of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs CIT (245 ITR 248), CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, 352 ITR 88 (Del), Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) in support of his contention. 6.7 Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld. DR that the legality of the view taken by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) revolves around the question as to the status of the impugne…

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2013–14 IBM India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of No.12, Subramanya Arcade, Income Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore-560 029. Vs. Bangalore. PAN – AAACI 4403 L. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.A Respondent by : Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate, Standing Counsel along Shri Dilip Advocate for Dept. Date of Hearing : 03-06-2020 Date of Pronouncemen…

M/S.Sonarome Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1627/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sonarome Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No.34, 35&36, Kiadb Income Tax, Industrial Area, Vs. Circle – 6(1)(2), Doddaballapur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 561 203. Pan : Aadcs 9267 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-6, Bengaluru, Dated 13.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Initially, The Assessee Raised As Many As 11 Grounds Of Appeal But Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal Containing 3 Grounds. These Grounds As Per The Concise Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Cit(A)") Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Commission Expenditure Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act To The Tune Of 9.69.257 As No Tax Was Deductible At Source Thereon To The Extent Of 9.30.746.52 Because The Said Sums Were Not Chargeable To Tax In India. While Tax Was In Fact Deducted On A Sum Amounting To X38.511. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of X1.75.069 On Account Of Bonus & Ex-Gratia Without Appreciating That No Deductions Were Claimed For These Sums Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri. K. Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 40

…398/- out of the provision of Rs.9,05,014/- is available and therefore, it cannot be said that this is unascertained Liability. Reliance was placed by him on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT as reported in 245 ITR 428, copy available on pages 340 to 346 of the Paper Book. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the assessee has furnished only 2 details, 1 is journal voucher in respect of provision in the present year as various amounts shown as payable to various employees Page 6 of 7…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

…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 p…

M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3865/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

…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 p…

Uhde India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 1904/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodthyssenkrupp Indutrial Solutions (India) Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax 10(3); Private Limited (Formerly Known As Uhde India Mumbai. Vs. Private Limited); Uhde House, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 0883 Pan – Aaacu1446H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sshri Niraj Sheth, Darshti Naik & HarmuzdFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chandra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…rder passed in the assessee‘s own case for A.Y 2002-03, dated 10.09.2008, after relying on the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), had observed, that incurring of liability should be certain during the year and should be capable of estimation with reasonable certainty. In other words, the requirements of the principle to be followed for making of a provision were viz. (a). the certainty of the arising of the liability; and (b). on quantum aspect, the estimation must be…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

M/S Aspinwall & Co., Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

Aspinwall & Company Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM&GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Coch/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspinwall and Company Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 926/AI-A5, Total Towers, Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. Devankulangara, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN: AACCA 2655G] (Assessee…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3041/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)

…was also paid on this provision of Rs. 31.35crore. In Exide Industries Ltd vs UOI (2007) 292 ITR 470, the Calcutta High Court struck down 43B (f) as being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth movers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 on the ground that the objects and reasons were silent as to why the amendment was effected and that the amendment was not consistent with section 43B which was originally inserted to plug evasion of statutory liability. 10.1 The said judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd vs UOI has been stayed by the Supreme Court…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2954/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)

…was also paid on this provision of Rs. 31.35crore. In Exide Industries Ltd vs UOI (2007) 292 ITR 470, the Calcutta High Court struck down 43B (f) as being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth movers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 on the ground that the objects and reasons were silent as to why the amendment was effected and that the amendment was not consistent with section 43B which was originally inserted to plug evasion of statutory liability. 10.1 The said judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd vs UOI has been stayed by the Supreme Court…

Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4866/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Wockhardt Ltd, Vs Additional Commissioner Of Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Income Tax Range -10(1), Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400051 M.K. Road, Mumbai -20 Pan:Aaacw2472M Appellant Respondednt

Section 14ASection 35Section 35fSection 92BSection 92C

…d on the decision of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India (P) ltd. (312 ITR 254 SC). And in third alternative submissions submits that ascertained liability are allowable in computing income and in support of his submissions relied on Bharat Earthmovers Ltd Vs CIT (245 ITR 428 SC). 29. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the order of the tax authorities below. The assessing officer while computing book profit added back provision of Rs, 51 Crore for marked to market loss without discussion or issuing show cause notice to the assessee. During the first appellate stage the assessee filed its de…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5537/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation The Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Range 1 (1), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Acit-1(1), M/S Hindustan Petroleum Room No. 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Limited, Mumbai – 20 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (ARs)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 37

…rt of the contracts and the liability gets attached, the moment a service contract is signed; inducting a new employee. The argument of Senior Counsel is, therefore, well founded. We shall also, refer to the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs CIT reported in 245 ITR 428, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that leave encashment is not a contingent liability. Taking the same cue, that post retirement medical benefit is also a liability which gets attached to the company the moment, the service contract is signed, we hold that the revenue authorities erred in disallowing the provision under this head. Havin…

Hindustan Petroleum Corporaiton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4946/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation The Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Range 1 (1), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Acit-1(1), M/S Hindustan Petroleum Room No. 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Limited, Mumbai – 20 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (ARs)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 37

…rt of the contracts and the liability gets attached, the moment a service contract is signed; inducting a new employee. The argument of Senior Counsel is, therefore, well founded. We shall also, refer to the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs CIT reported in 245 ITR 428, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that leave encashment is not a contingent liability. Taking the same cue, that post retirement medical benefit is also a liability which gets attached to the company the moment, the service contract is signed, we hold that the revenue authorities erred in disallowing the provision under this head. Havin…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…9] 29 SOT 356 in support of the case of the assessee. In the course of hearing, reference has also been made to the following decisions: (i) judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. (supra) (ii) Bharat Earth Movers v, CIT [20007 245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) and, (iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged in the execution of an inf…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…9] 29 SOT 356 in support of the case of the assessee. In the course of hearing, reference has also been made to the following decisions: (i) judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. (supra) (ii) Bharat Earth Movers v, CIT [20007 245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) and, (iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged in the execution of an inf…