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 367,154 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

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ard point lapse after a few years, the same is reversed and offered to tax and hence the entire transaction is revenue neutral. The ld.counsel also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) ITA Nos.518, 505, 506 & 507/Chny/2020 and Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT,reported in 314 ITR 62(SC). 3.4 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has given comparative figures i.e., opening balance of provisions, provision created for the year under considera…

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ard point lapse after a few years, the same is reversed and offered to tax and hence the entire transaction is revenue neutral. The ld.counsel also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) ITA Nos.518, 505, 506 & 507/Chny/2020 and Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT,reported in 314 ITR 62(SC). 3.4 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has given comparative figures i.e., opening balance of provisions, provision created for the year under considera…

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ard point lapse after a few years, the same is reversed and offered to tax and hence the entire transaction is revenue neutral. The ld.counsel also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) ITA Nos.518, 505, 506 & 507/Chny/2020 and Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT,reported in 314 ITR 62(SC). 3.4 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has given comparative figures i.e., opening balance of provisions, provision created for the year under considera…

Associated Techno Plastic P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1890/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Associated Techno Plastic P.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Elegence Level-2, Mathura Road, Circle-2(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca2525K Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2008-09] Associated Techno Plastic P.Ltd., vs DCIT, Elegence Level-2, Mathura Road, Circle-2(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025. New Delhi. PAN-AAACA2525K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.05.2024 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-V, New Delhi dated 12.11.2012 for the assessment year…

Amalgam Foods Limited, Kochi vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Alappuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 561/COCH/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Amalgam Foods Limited Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Alappuzha Amalgam House, Bristow Road, Vs. Willingdon Island, Kochi-682 002 [Pan:Aabca 8283D] (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 : 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 26.12.2019, For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-2002. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. Taking Note Of The Request Dated 05.02.2024 By Sri R. Srinivasan, Ca, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, That His Personal Appearance May Be Dispensed With & The Matter Decided After Considering Written Submissions, Enclosed Along With, The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi
Section 143(3)Section 254

…the basis for allowance of provision on various expenses, viz. gratuity, leave encashment, sale warranty, etc., and toward which we may advert to decisions in Rotrak Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC); Madras Industrial Inv. Corp. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), to cite few, as also to CIT v. British Paints (I) Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC). Financial obligation in FE may also be added to this list. The actual discharge of the liability during the relevant year is not a condition precedent. This shall also meet the Revenue’s objection…

Sony Pictues Netorks India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delhi (Now Known As National Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 925/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2015-16 : A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…g expenses. It also relied upon following decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to reiterate its point that the provision for outstanding expenses is an accrued liability and hence allowable as deduction:- (a) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000)(245 ITR 428)(SC) (b) Calcutta Co Ltd vs. CIT (1959)(37 ITR 1)(SC) (c) Rotork Controls India P Ltd vs. CIT (2009)(314 ITR 62)(SC) In view of the above, the Ld DRP called for a remand report from the assessing officer. However, in the remand report, the AO reiterated his earlier findings that the assessee has made provision on adhoc basis, since relevant bills…

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4786/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re us that the liability to pay has accrued and quantified in current year pursuant to order dated 30 June 2004 passed by the Bombay Special Court. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:  Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (245 ITR 428)  Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd Vs CIT (180 Taxman 422)  Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs CIT (82 ITR 363)  Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd (239 ITR 505)  Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs CIT (210 ITR 358) 116. We fi…

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4765/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re us that the liability to pay has accrued and quantified in current year pursuant to order dated 30 June 2004 passed by the Bombay Special Court. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:  Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (245 ITR 428)  Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd Vs CIT (180 Taxman 422)  Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs CIT (82 ITR 363)  Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd (239 ITR 505)  Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs CIT (210 ITR 358) 116. We fi…

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hongkong & Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 7824/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re us that the liability to pay has accrued and quantified in current year pursuant to order dated 30 June 2004 passed by the Bombay Special Court. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:  Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (245 ITR 428)  Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd Vs CIT (180 Taxman 422)  Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs CIT (82 ITR 363)  Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd (239 ITR 505)  Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs CIT (210 ITR 358) 116. We fi…

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 7336/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re us that the liability to pay has accrued and quantified in current year pursuant to order dated 30 June 2004 passed by the Bombay Special Court. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:  Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (245 ITR 428)  Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd Vs CIT (180 Taxman 422)  Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs CIT (82 ITR 363)  Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd (239 ITR 505)  Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs CIT (210 ITR 358) 116. We fi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4251/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…during the year. This categorical finding has been followed by the ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration also. Hence, assessee’s case squarely falls within the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Insilco Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 322 (Del.) 9.6 The ld. AR before us relied on the CBDT Circular no. 12 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022 wherein vide question no. 4 in response to a specific query raised, the CBDT had replied that discounts allowed to customers would only represent lesser r…

Ms. Genpact India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4060/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…during the year. This categorical finding has been followed by the ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration also. Hence, assessee’s case squarely falls within the ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Insilco Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 322 (Del.) 9.6 The ld. AR before us relied on the CBDT Circular no. 12 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022 wherein vide question no. 4 in response to a specific query raised, the CBDT had replied that discounts allowed to customers would only represent lesser r…

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 678/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…inite liability” of the respondent towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. Consistent with that finding, the Appellate Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers versus Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 245 ITR 428 allowed the appeal and was pleased to set aside the assessment order to the extent disallowing the amount towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondent assessee. It is not open for this Court to over turn the finding of fact so recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and, moreso, when t…

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 677/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…inite liability” of the respondent towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. Consistent with that finding, the Appellate Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers versus Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 245 ITR 428 allowed the appeal and was pleased to set aside the assessment order to the extent disallowing the amount towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondent assessee. It is not open for this Court to over turn the finding of fact so recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and, moreso, when t…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 1343/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…inite liability” of the respondent towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. Consistent with that finding, the Appellate Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers versus Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 245 ITR 428 allowed the appeal and was pleased to set aside the assessment order to the extent disallowing the amount towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondent assessee. It is not open for this Court to over turn the finding of fact so recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and, moreso, when t…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 1321/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…inite liability” of the respondent towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. Consistent with that finding, the Appellate Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers versus Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 245 ITR 428 allowed the appeal and was pleased to set aside the assessment order to the extent disallowing the amount towards leave allowance to be paid to the employees. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondent assessee. It is not open for this Court to over turn the finding of fact so recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and, moreso, when t…

Jt. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1349/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13)

…nt of Rs. 4.45 crore. The assessee has made an estimate on reasonable basis of such liability on the basis of actuarial valuation. In this regard, it is relevant to note following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC): "4. The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty thoug…

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-58, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji and Ms. Aastha Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.AR

…nt of Rs. 4.45 crore. The assessee has made an estimate on reasonable basis of such liability on the basis of actuarial valuation. In this regard, it is relevant to note following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC): “4. The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty thoug…

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

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…deduction even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- g) “21. In conc…

Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3195/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: us. 2.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 250

…de Industries Limited and Another us. Union Of India and Others (292 ITR 470) has struck down the provisions of Section 43B(f), being arbitrary, unconscionable, unconstitutional and endorsed the Apex court's decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers [2000] (245 ITR 428).” 12.6. Thus, before the Assessing Officer the Assessee took a position that the additional provision of INR 48.26 Crores was not separately funded. However, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) the Assessee has submitted that a payment of INR 48.38 Crores was made to LIC during the relevant previous year, i.e., on 26/09/2013. Bef…