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.

How many judgments cite Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT?

901 judgments on BharatTax cite Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 195.

Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428)

Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/57/2018HC Delhi17 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…ank deposits as per RBI Circular in a bonafide manner. It is also fact that there is no change in the method of accounting but only change in accounting policy as guided by the RBI. 5.5.6 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs CIT [245 ITR 428] held that 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. Page 4 of 13 ITA 57/2018 What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonab…

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 10(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3550/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4288/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Thermo Fisher Scientific Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 India Private Limited Mumbai [Formerly Known As Thermo Electro बनाम/ Lls India Pvt. Ltd.] Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing,Delphi Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct-3207-A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3550/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Thermo Fisher Scientific Assistant Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax Circle-10(3) [Formerly Known As Thermo Electro बनाम/ Mumbai Lls India Pvt. Ltd.] Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing,Delphi Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct-3207-A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Girish Dave, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manjunatha Swamy, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…crease in salary expenses incurred by the assessee. The Ld. AR contended that the same was arrived at on the basis of report of actuarial valuation and therefore, allowable in terms of ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 ITR 428]. 4.6 It is settled proposition that deduction could be allowed to assessee only against ascertained liabilities and not mere provision. The Ld. AR could not demonstrate the working of arriving at the said provision. It is ITA.No.4288/Mum/2011 & 3550/Mum/2012 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited Assessment Year-2006-07 also noted that t…

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd ( Formerly Knwon As Thermo Electro Lls India P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. CIT 10, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4288/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4288/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Thermo Fisher Scientific Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 India Private Limited Mumbai [Formerly Known As Thermo Electro बनाम/ Lls India Pvt. Ltd.] Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing,Delphi Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct-3207-A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3550/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Thermo Fisher Scientific Assistant Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax Circle-10(3) [Formerly Known As Thermo Electro बनाम/ Mumbai Lls India Pvt. Ltd.] Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing,Delphi Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct-3207-A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Girish Dave, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manjunatha Swamy, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…crease in salary expenses incurred by the assessee. The Ld. AR contended that the same was arrived at on the basis of report of actuarial valuation and therefore, allowable in terms of ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 ITR 428]. 4.6 It is settled proposition that deduction could be allowed to assessee only against ascertained liabilities and not mere provision. The Ld. AR could not demonstrate the working of arriving at the said provision. It is ITA.No.4288/Mum/2011 & 3550/Mum/2012 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited Assessment Year-2006-07 also noted that t…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

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

ITA 305/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…uld be entitled for deduction on provision basis by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 8 9 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC). Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2001-02 is allowed. 6. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the action of the ld AO in not allowing the set off of business loss of packaging division of the assessee with the business income of the assessee in…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

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

ITA 304/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…uld be entitled for deduction on provision basis by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 8 9 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC). Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2001-02 is allowed. 6. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the action of the ld AO in not allowing the set off of business loss of packaging division of the assessee with the business income of the assessee in…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 302/KOL/2016[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…uld be entitled for deduction on provision basis by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 8 9 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC). Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2001-02 is allowed. 6. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the action of the ld AO in not allowing the set off of business loss of packaging division of the assessee with the business income of the assessee in…

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 301/KOL/2016[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…uld be entitled for deduction on provision basis by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 8 9 ITA Nos.301-302 &304-305/Kol/2016 M/s Rydak Syndicate Ltd. A.Yrs. 93-94,01-02,11-12&12-13 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC). Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2001-02 is allowed. 6. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the action of the ld AO in not allowing the set off of business loss of packaging division of the assessee with the business income of the assessee in…

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1307/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.1307/Mum/2013 AY: 2009-10 Knight Riders Sports Private Limited Vs. ACIT-Central Circle-29 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s Knight Riders Sports ACIT, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AADCK3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R सुनवाई की तायीख / : 06.10.2017 Date of Hear…

M/S Integrated Databases India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5055/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

…gh Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. 292 ITR 470, wherein the Hon’ble Court struck down the provisions of Section 43B(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 2 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 requirin…

West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 632/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Kar, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 43BSection 43D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 632/Kol/2015 A.Y: 2009-10 West Bengal State Vs. D.C.I.T., Cir-2, Kolkata Warehousing Corporation PAN: AAACW2341R [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri T.P. Kar, FCA, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 09-11-2017 Date of pronouncement : 14-12-2017 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bgr Energy System Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 954/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mrs. Jharna B. Harilal, C.A

…lso required the assessee to furnish the reasons for the delay in execution of the concerned projects. Assessee had failed to furnish the details. Assessee had simply relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT 245 ITR 431. Ld. Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim for want of details, inter-alia noting that Hon’ble Apex Court judgment relied on by the assessee was related to a provision for leave encashment and not on any provision created for possible liability that might arise on account of delay. When the matter reached the ld. CIT(A), assessee had relied…

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 660/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mrs. Jharna B. Harilal, C.A

…lso required the assessee to furnish the reasons for the delay in execution of the concerned projects. Assessee had failed to furnish the details. Assessee had simply relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT 245 ITR 431. Ld. Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim for want of details, inter-alia noting that Hon’ble Apex Court judgment relied on by the assessee was related to a provision for leave encashment and not on any provision created for possible liability that might arise on account of delay. When the matter reached the ld. CIT(A), assessee had relied…

M/S. Lumax Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6961/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Lumax Industries Ltd., Jcit, Range- 4, B-85/86, Mayapuri Industrial New Delhi. Vs. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacl1126D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…vered by Explanation 1(i) to Section 115JB of the Act. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.” 38. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Majestic Auto Ltd. reported in 150 taxmann.com 460 have also held similar view. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sony India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT vide ITA no.1181/Del/2005 has held as under :- “We, therefore, hold that the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Cour…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 17/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…er the Act mere provision cannot be allowed as deduction. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision in the cases Rotork Controls & ITA No.17/Mds/2017 India (P) Limited [2009] reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC), and CIT v Sony India (P) Limited [2007] reported in 160 taxman 397 (Delhi HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee. At the outset we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In the case Rotork Controls India P Ltd., relied by the Ld.CIT(A), the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the deduction will be allowed in the c…

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3389/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…er the Act mere provision cannot be allowed as deduction. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision in the cases Rotork Controls & ITA No.17/Mds/2017 India (P) Limited [2009] reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC), and CIT v Sony India (P) Limited [2007] reported in 160 taxman 397 (Delhi HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee. At the outset we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In the case Rotork Controls India P Ltd., relied by the Ld.CIT(A), the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the deduction will be allowed in the c…

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3388/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…er the Act mere provision cannot be allowed as deduction. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision in the cases Rotork Controls & ITA No.17/Mds/2017 India (P) Limited [2009] reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC), and CIT v Sony India (P) Limited [2007] reported in 160 taxman 397 (Delhi HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee. At the outset we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In the case Rotork Controls India P Ltd., relied by the Ld.CIT(A), the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the deduction will be allowed in the c…

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3387/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…er the Act mere provision cannot be allowed as deduction. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision in the cases Rotork Controls & ITA No.17/Mds/2017 India (P) Limited [2009] reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC), and CIT v Sony India (P) Limited [2007] reported in 160 taxman 397 (Delhi HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee. At the outset we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In the case Rotork Controls India P Ltd., relied by the Ld.CIT(A), the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the deduction will be allowed in the c…

M/S Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1499/DEL/2013 Assessment Year:2008-09 Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT F-225-A, Sainik Farm Circle 11(1) New Delhi New Delhi TAN/PAN:AAACE2920L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Anil Bhalla, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Anshu Prakash, D.R. Date of hearing: 26 09 2017 Date of pronouncement: 13 11 2017 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 21/1/2013, passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-…

Stanley Black & Decker India Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4169/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 145(2)Section 43B

…Mum/2012 relating to A.Y. 2007-08, wherein the Tribunal has confirmed the disallowance. Learned AR submitted that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal did not consider the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers Vs. CIT (245 ITR 428), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a business liability has definitely arisen in an accounting year, then deduction should be allowed although liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. Learned AR further submitted that the CBDT has notified Accounting Standard-1 relating to disclosure of accounting policies u/…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. C.R. Building, PAN-AAACM0829Q New Delhi. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra Revenue by Sh. Aprender Kumar Date of Hearing 21.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2017 ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal challenging the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer u/…

Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT

What is Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT

Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 10(3), Mumbai

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd ( Formerly Knwon As Thermo Electro Lls India P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. CIT 10, Mumbai

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Spl. RG-2, Kolkata

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

M/S Integrated Databases India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata, Karnataka

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bgr Energy System Ltd., Chennai

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Lumax Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

DCIT, Chennai vs. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

M/S Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Stanley Black & Decker India Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi