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)

Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs. JCIT

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

ITA 225/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Off Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur Po Bangalore-560022. … Respondent Pan:Aaacb 5723 A & (By The Assessee) ****** Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit(Dr) Revenue By : Shri K.P.Kumar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.P.Kumar, Advocate

Section 260A

…at the provisions are allowable as expenditure provided the expenditure can be ITA Nos.211 & 225/Bang/2014 Page 10 of 11 estimated with reasonable accuracy. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (245 ITR 428) ii. Calcutta & Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (37 ITR 1) The law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases is that the provisions are allowable as deduction while computing income under profits and gains of business provided the liability can be estimated with reasonable accuracy and the liability has accrued even though payment of the liability…

DCIT vs. M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd

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

ITA 211/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Off Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur Po Bangalore-560022. … Respondent Pan:Aaacb 5723 A & (By The Assessee) ****** Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit(Dr) Revenue By : Shri K.P.Kumar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.P.Kumar, Advocate

Section 260A

…at the provisions are allowable as expenditure provided the expenditure can be ITA Nos.211 & 225/Bang/2014 Page 10 of 11 estimated with reasonable accuracy. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (245 ITR 428) ii. Calcutta & Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (37 ITR 1) The law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases is that the provisions are allowable as deduction while computing income under profits and gains of business provided the liability can be estimated with reasonable accuracy and the liability has accrued even though payment of the liability…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3947/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

Section 145Section 37(1)

…he issue at page 52, para 7.4 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 37 ITR 01, Metal Block Co. of India Ltd. Vs their workmen reported in 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earthmovers Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 428, wherein it has been held that the 15 I.T.A.Nos.3947,3048,3949/Del/2013 I.T.A.Nos.3517-3520/Del/2013 liability being determined one, though to be discharged in future, did not make it a contingent liability and is allowable. He further noted that the principle enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, has been followed by Hon'bl…

M/S National Fertilizer Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3520/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

Section 145Section 37(1)

…he issue at page 52, para 7.4 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 37 ITR 01, Metal Block Co. of India Ltd. Vs their workmen reported in 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earthmovers Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 428, wherein it has been held that the 15 I.T.A.Nos.3947,3048,3949/Del/2013 I.T.A.Nos.3517-3520/Del/2013 liability being determined one, though to be discharged in future, did not make it a contingent liability and is allowable. He further noted that the principle enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, has been followed by Hon'bl…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Communication Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 988/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s. 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 v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) has held that an assessee who is maintaining the accounts on mercantile system, a liability already accrued, though to & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 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…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 801/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s. 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 v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) has held that an assessee who is maintaining the accounts on mercantile system, a liability already accrued, though to & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 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…

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 3/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. ‘Te’ Park, 22B, Doddenakundi 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560048. … Appellant Pan: Aabct 7374 C Vs. Income-Tax Officer (Ltu)(Tds) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. ‘TE’ Park, 22B, Doddenakundi 2nd Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560048. … Appellant PAN: AABCT 7374 C Vs. Income-tax Officer (LTU)(TDS) Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 25/04/2016 Date of pronouncement : 25/05/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company direc…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri H. P. Mahajan…

Sulzer India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7324/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7324/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sulzer India Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gate No. 304, Income Tax – 8(3), V. Kondhapuri, Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, Tal- Shirur, Aayakar Bhavan, Dist. Pune – 412 209. M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs 7876D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234B

…he true and fair picture , and Revenue can compute correct income which is to be brought to tax. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC), Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Yum! Restaurants (I) P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 33 Taxmann.com 633( Delhi HC). The ld counsel also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT v. Hero Management Services Limited 360 ITR 68(Del), CIT v. Armour Consultants Private Limited , 355 ITR 418(Mad.) , CIT v. Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corp…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Accountant Member A.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs ACIT 12th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra Kumar…

Lawkim Ltd ( Now Merged With Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 5092/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali GodboleFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ns. 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 v. CIT[2000] 245 ITR 428/112 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 not…

Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T. 14(1), Vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd., Mumbai. (Formerly M/S. Proagro Seed Co. P. Ltd. ), Bayer House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai.[Pan: Aaacp 3459M]

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

…Mumbai for AY 2007-08 vide order dated 08.02.2012 wherein it has been held that the provisions has been made on reasonable basis (refer para 11 of the order). • Further, assessee wishes to place reliance on the following rulings - Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (245 ITR 428) (SC) - Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs Their Workmen (73 ITR 53) (SC) - Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs CIT (37 ITR 1) (SC) - Rotork Controls India Private Limited vs CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC) - CIT vs Vintec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (278 ITR 337) [Delhi HC] • Without prejudice to the above submission, in case your honour considers to not allow the expense for…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4784/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA nos. 4783 & 4784/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT Range-8, (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi. 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAaCS 9563 R AND ITA nos. 4779 & 4780/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 ACIT Range-8, Vs. Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. ( Appellant ) (Respondent…

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4783/DEL/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA nos. 4783 & 4784/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT Range-8, (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi. 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAaCS 9563 R AND ITA nos. 4779 & 4780/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 ACIT Range-8, Vs. Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. ( Appellant ) (Respondent…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4780/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA nos. 4783 & 4784/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT Range-8, (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi. 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAaCS 9563 R AND ITA nos. 4779 & 4780/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 ACIT Range-8, Vs. Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. ( Appellant ) (Respondent…

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4779/DEL/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil CIT (DR)

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA nos. 4783 & 4784/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT Range-8, (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi. 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAaCS 9563 R AND ITA nos. 4779 & 4780/Del/2007 Asstt. Yrs: 2002-03 & 2003-04 ACIT Range-8, Vs. Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Now Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd.) 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. ( Appellant ) (Respondent…

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 648/KOL/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115J

…s disallowed by him. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of provisions for leave encashment by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Bharat Earth Movers reported in 245 ITR 428, wherein it was held that if a business liability has definitely arisen in the relevant year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. It was held that what should be certain is the incurring of the liability, which is capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty tho…

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited

ITTA/37/2007HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

…37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 d deductible from gross profit? iii) Whether leave encashment is a current or present liability or a contingent liability in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC) and thus accordingly allowable as an expense deductible from gross profit? iv) Whether the provision for leave encashment is a defined benefit entitled to be allowed as an expense during the -3- year in which such provision is made in books of accounts in view of Accounting Standard 15 issued by ICAI? (v) Whether the…

Vasant J, Khetani, Mumbai vs. JCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 3340/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3340/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Mr. Vasant J. Khetani, Joint Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255/16, Kamla Sadan, Income Tax-17(3), V. Prof. U.U. Bhatt Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Matunga, Road,Mumbai. Mumbai 400 019. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpk 4366M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar- (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

…ority of law and nor these are contractual liabilities as per the terms of lease deed entered by and between the lessor and the lessee. The ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Taparia Tools Private Limited , (2015)372 ITR 605(SC). 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the demand has not been paid by the assessee to the BMC and there is thus non compliance of provisions of Section 43B(a) of the Act and the authorities below has rightly made the disallo…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 6, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2175/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 14A

…n for such liability was required to be taken into account for arriving at the commercial profit. In arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 245 ITR 428, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. It was held that what should be certain is the incurring of the liability which should be capable of being esti…

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

Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd vs. JCIT

DCIT vs. M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

M/S National Fertilizer Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Communication Ltd., Noida

Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

Sulzer India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 8(3), Mumbai

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Lawkim Ltd ( Now Merged With Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(1), Mumbai

Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd vs. Addl CIT Range-8

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

DCIT Circle 8 (1) vs. Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited

Vasant J, Khetani, Mumbai vs. JCIT 17(3), Mumbai

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 6, Kolkata