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

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Small Idnustries Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 607/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjaneyalu, CIT
Section 147Section 37

…ear of payment. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 has struck down the section 43B(f) of the Act being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the facts Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. However, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of Hon’ble 16 I.T.A. No.307/M/17 & Ors Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed it vide its order dated 08/05/2009 as under :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrue…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Small Idnustries Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 606/CHNY/2017[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjaneyalu, CIT
Section 147Section 37

…ear of payment. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 has struck down the section 43B(f) of the Act being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the facts Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. However, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of Hon’ble 16 I.T.A. No.307/M/17 & Ors Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed it vide its order dated 08/05/2009 as under :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrue…

Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 415/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjaneyalu, CIT
Section 147Section 37

…ear of payment. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 has struck down the section 43B(f) of the Act being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the facts Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. However, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of Hon’ble 16 I.T.A. No.307/M/17 & Ors Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed it vide its order dated 08/05/2009 as under :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrue…

Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 414/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjaneyalu, CIT
Section 147Section 37

…ear of payment. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 has struck down the section 43B(f) of the Act being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the facts Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. However, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of Hon’ble 16 I.T.A. No.307/M/17 & Ors Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed it vide its order dated 08/05/2009 as under :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrue…

Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 413/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjaneyalu, CIT
Section 147Section 37

…ear of payment. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 has struck down the section 43B(f) of the Act being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the facts Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. However, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of Hon’ble 16 I.T.A. No.307/M/17 & Ors Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed it vide its order dated 08/05/2009 as under :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrue…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 334/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjaneyalu, CIT
Section 147Section 37

…ear of payment. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 has struck down the section 43B(f) of the Act being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the facts Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. However, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of Hon’ble 16 I.T.A. No.307/M/17 & Ors Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed it vide its order dated 08/05/2009 as under :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrue…

Tamilnadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 307/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjaneyalu, CIT
Section 147Section 37

…ear of payment. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 has struck down the section 43B(f) of the Act being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the facts Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428. However, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of Hon’ble 16 I.T.A. No.307/M/17 & Ors Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed it vide its order dated 08/05/2009 as under :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrue…

Tavant Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1592/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ee has submitted that this is not a provision for uncertain liability but this is an actual amount paid by the assessee therefore no addition is called for. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT 245 ITR 248. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT 312 ITR 605. 19. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when the assessee has not produced the relevant evidence to show that this is a certain liab…

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 253/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2007-08

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 253/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08. cuke M/s Rajasthan State Mines, & Minerals The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Ltd., C-89-90, Lal Kothi, Janpath, of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAACR 7857 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 295/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 200…

Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refiner & Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1240/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Maker Tower-F Wing, 16Th Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Pan:Aaacm 5132 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1826/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Addl. Cit-Range-3(2) Vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai. Mumbai-400 005. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chohan-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:S/ Shri S.E. Dastur & Madhur Aggarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:17/05/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2009,Of Cit (A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year.Assessee- Company, Engaged In The Business Of Refining Of Crude Oil, Selling Of Petroleum Products & Captive Generation & Distribution Of Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 25/10/2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 18/12/2008, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.Nil.

For Appellant: S/ Shri S.E. Dastur and Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chohan-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 40A(9)

…ility of Customs duty and its payment. Before us, the learned representative for the assessee had justifiably placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd., 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers, 245 ITR 428 (SC) to emphasise that the point of arisal of a liability is not the same as the point of time prescribed for its payment. Notably, in the present case, assessee, at the time of obtaining clearance of raw material without payment of duty complied with the conditions prescribed by the Customs Department by furnishing a Bond to the Customs authorit…

Ford India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. Dy CIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

…enditure under the provisions of the Act. • Notwithstanding the above, the following case laws support the Appellant’s position: Judicial precedents Principle/Ruling Bharat Earth Movers v. It was held that the provision created by the assessee for CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 meeting the liability incurred by it under leave encashment (SC) scheme proportionate to the entitlement earned by the employees was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts for the accounting year during which the provision was made for the liability and it will not tantamount to contingent liability on account of reasonable quantificatio…

Ford India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. Dy CIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2344/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

…enditure under the provisions of the Act. • Notwithstanding the above, the following case laws support the Appellant’s position: Judicial precedents Principle/Ruling Bharat Earth Movers v. It was held that the provision created by the assessee for CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 meeting the liability incurred by it under leave encashment (SC) scheme proportionate to the entitlement earned by the employees was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts for the accounting year during which the provision was made for the liability and it will not tantamount to contingent liability on account of reasonable quantificatio…

M/S Canara Housing Development Company, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…AS-4, the assessee has correctly valued its liability based on the event occurred after the date of balance sheet. He has relied upon the following decisions : (i) ACIT Vs. Allied Gems Corporation (Bombay) 163 ITR 56 (Bom) (ii) Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC) 11 Canara Housing Devt. Co. 8. Alternatively the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that in case the liability has not crystallized in the Assessment Year 2005-06 then the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow the deduction in Assessment Year 2006-07. The learned Authorised Representative has further poin…

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

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 28Section 36Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. ACIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi PAN : AAFCS6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28.03.2017 Date of pronouncement 28.04.2017 ORDER Per O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi, dated…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 238/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 238/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Nalwa Steel & Power Ltd., Circle-13(1), 1213, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3209L Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr & Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 12.10.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR &
Section 115J

…nstallations @ 15% by considering the same to be part of 'plant and machinery'. In the case CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court applied Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 and followed Bharat Earthmovers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428, CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 254 ITR 666, CrT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 257 ITR 737 and CIT vs. Starlight Silk Mills P. Ltd. 280 ITR 257 and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the electrical installations formed an integral part of the assessee's plant, therefore, depreciation was allowable at the rate applicable to plant and machinery.…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Mayura Infrastructure Development Company, Kishangarh

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 873/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153A

…ing the year under consideration. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are in agreement with the order of the ld. CIT(A). For holding so, we also get support from the following case laws:- 1. Bharat Earth Movers v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC). 2. Calcutta Co. Limited v CIT (1959)( 37 ITR 1)(SC). 3. CIT v Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited ITA NO 56 OF 2009 in the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi. 4. EXL Service.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s Asst. CIT (Del ‘I’)156. 5. Asstt. CIT vs Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. (Pune ‘B’)(UO)19 ITA 873 & 874/JP/2016 8 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax…

Pr. Commisssioner of Income Tax-06 vs. National Fertilizer Limited

ITA/551/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…who came to the conclusion that it was not an item of deduction covered under Section 43B of the Act. The ITAT in the ITANos. 782,784,817 and551 of2016 Page 3 of 6 impugned order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Fertilizers Ltd

ITA/784/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…who came to the conclusion that it was not an item of deduction covered under Section 43B of the Act. The ITAT in the ITANos. 782,784,817 and551 of2016 Page 3 of 6 impugned order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Fertilizers Ltd

ITA/782/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…who came to the conclusion that it was not an item of deduction covered under Section 43B of the Act. The ITAT in the ITANos. 782,784,817 and551 of2016 Page 3 of 6 impugned order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial…

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Years 2007-08 as well

ITA 511/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri P. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)

…his context, it was held that the assessee had made the provision for gratuity on the basis of actuarial calculations. He, therefore, cannot be said that the provision for gratuity is not ascertained liability. 18. In case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 the Apex Court held that the amounts set apart by an assessee to meet its liability on account of leave encashment of employees is not a contingent liability. It was observed that what should be certain is the incurring of the liability which should also be estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not…