Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1959#224 most cited

What is Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as a deduction when following the mercantile system of accounting, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

341

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 37 ITR 1 · Supreme Court · 1959 · mercantile system of accounting · provision for liability deduction · allowable deduction · deferred quantification · Section 37(1) · business expenditure provision · scientific and rational basis liability

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 115JBSection 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Issues it is cited on

mercantile system of accountingsection 37section 37(1)section 36(1)section 36section 40salaryprevious yearindiacompanytransferbusiness

Judgments citing Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…re event. The assessee had placed reliance on following decision in support: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in [1969] 73 ITR 53 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 7.2. The Ld.AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held as under: “In the present case 'provisions for pension, is as a re…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…re event. The assessee had placed reliance on following decision in support: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in [1969] 73 ITR 53 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 7.2. The Ld.AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held as under: “In the present case 'provisions for pension, is as a re…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…on the following decisions wherein it has been held that in the mercan"le system of accoun"ng, liability for amount accrued/ expenditure incurred is to be allowed as deduc"on, though the same is to be discharged at a future date:  Calcu"a Company Ltd vs CIT: 37 ITR 1 (SC) 66 ITA Nos.- 5624/del/2010 & 5465/Del/2011 HCL Technologies Ltd.  Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT: 245 ITR 428 (SC) It is submi"ed that the said expenditure incurred by the Appellant, by foregoing a receivable in favour of employees on account of employee compensa"on, is clearly allowable as deduc"on under sec"on 37 of the Act. The said expenditu…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…on the following decisions wherein it has been held that in the mercan"le system of accoun"ng, liability for amount accrued/ expenditure incurred is to be allowed as deduc"on, though the same is to be discharged at a future date:  Calcu"a Company Ltd vs CIT: 37 ITR 1 (SC) 66 ITA Nos.- 5624/del/2010 & 5465/Del/2011 HCL Technologies Ltd.  Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT: 245 ITR 428 (SC) It is submi"ed that the said expenditure incurred by the Appellant, by foregoing a receivable in favour of employees on account of employee compensa"on, is clearly allowable as deduc"on under sec"on 37 of the Act. The said expenditu…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 903/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat. Considering The Same, The Order Passed By Itat Was Recalled & The Appeal Of The Assessee Fixed For Adjudication Afresh On Merits, Vide Order In Ma No.94/Ahd/2025, Dated 18.12.2025. The Present Appeal, Accordingly, Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…Following decisions are also relied upon: CIT Vs. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co.(P) Ltd. (1999) 105 Taxman 737 Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1971), 82 ITR 363 (SC) ED Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) Eastern Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011) 139 TTJ 94 (Visakha) CIT VS ILPEA Paramount P. Ltd. (2011), 336 ITR 54 (Delhi) Dresser Valve India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2009) 30 SOT 495 (Mum)  No petition is filed by the Company in this regard, neither any such petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as alleged.  The cont…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…n 44AD or any figure admitted by the assesse if it was higher than 8 per cent, hence assessing officer was not justified in charging entire 'on money' receipts as assessee's undisclosed income. (d) Abhishek Corporation 63 TTJ 651 (Ahd.) (e) Calcutta Co. Ltd 37 ITR 1 (SC) (f) Unreported decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Anand Builders, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that only 8% of gross receipt could be taxed in the case of a builder out of the on-money. Reference to the Hon'ble High Court was rejected and SLP against such rejection was also turned down as…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…n 44AD or any figure admitted by the assesse if it was higher than 8 per cent, hence assessing officer was not justified in charging entire 'on money' receipts as assessee's undisclosed income. (d) Abhishek Corporation 63 TTJ 651 (Ahd.) (e) Calcutta Co. Ltd 37 ITR 1 (SC) (f) Unreported decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Anand Builders, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that only 8% of gross receipt could be taxed in the case of a builder out of the on-money. Reference to the Hon'ble High Court was rejected and SLP against such rejection was also turned down as…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…n 44AD or any figure admitted by the assesse if it was higher than 8 per cent, hence assessing officer was not justified in charging entire 'on money' receipts as assessee's undisclosed income. (d) Abhishek Corporation 63 TTJ 651 (Ahd.) (e) Calcutta Co. Ltd 37 ITR 1 (SC) (f) Unreported decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Anand Builders, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that only 8% of gross receipt could be taxed in the case of a builder out of the on-money. Reference to the Hon'ble High Court was rejected and SLP against such rejection was also turned down as…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…n 44AD or any figure admitted by the assesse if it was higher than 8 per cent, hence assessing officer was not justified in charging entire 'on money' receipts as assessee's undisclosed income. (d) Abhishek Corporation 63 TTJ 651 (Ahd.) (e) Calcutta Co. Ltd 37 ITR 1 (SC) (f) Unreported decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Anand Builders, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that only 8% of gross receipt could be taxed in the case of a builder out of the on-money. Reference to the Hon'ble High Court was rejected and SLP against such rejection was also turned down as…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…visions for liabilities made on scientific and rational basis are allowable as deduction while following mercantile accrual system of accounting even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date [refer Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC), United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)]. 41. As regards the allegation of the assessing officer that since the issue of quantification of AGR and consequential licence fee is pending/ disputed before the apex Court, the provision for interest for delay…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…visions for liabilities made on scientific and rational basis are allowable as deduction while following mercantile accrual system of accounting even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date [refer Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC), United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)]. 41. As regards the allegation of the assessing officer that since the issue of quantification of AGR and consequential licence fee is pending/ disputed before the apex Court, the provision for interest for delay…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…visions for liabilities made on scientific and rational basis are allowable as deduction while following mercantile accrual system of accounting even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date [refer Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC), United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)]. 41. As regards the allegation of the assessing officer that since the issue of quantification of AGR and consequential licence fee is pending/ disputed before the apex Court, the provision for interest for delay…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…visions for liabilities made on scientific and rational basis are allowable as deduction while following mercantile accrual system of accounting even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date [refer Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC), United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)]. 41. As regards the allegation of the assessing officer that since the issue of quantification of AGR and consequential licence fee is pending/ disputed before the apex Court, the provision for interest for delay…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…essee by ITAT orders for AY 2006-07 to 2010-11 and also covered in favour of assessee by the following orders :-  CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 (SC)  Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 (SC)  Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561  CIT vsVinitecCorpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) He further submitted that the appeals filed by the department, inter-alia, o…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…essee by ITAT orders for AY 2006-07 to 2010-11 and also covered in favour of assessee by the following orders :-  CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 (SC)  Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 (SC)  Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561  CIT vsVinitecCorpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) He further submitted that the appeals filed by the department, inter-alia, o…

FAUJDAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHARATPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

ITA 560/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: SHRI DHEERAJ BORAD, C.AFor Respondent: MRS. ANITA RINESH, JCIT-DR
Section 145(3)

…must be something more than bare suspicion to support an assessment: a) Dhakeswari vs. CIT 26 (TR 775, 782(SC) b) DhirajlalGirdhariLalVs CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC) Assessment Years: 2018-19 c) CIT VsDaulatramRawat mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) d) Omar salay Mohammed vs CIT 37 ITR 1 5 1 (SC) CIT vs. Kameshwar I ITR 94, 106(PC) 10. Besides the appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon various judicial pronouncements in addition to what is mentioned above in these written submission and the list of such judicial pronouncements inter-alia containing brief narration and citations is annexed with these written submissions, w…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD

ITA/303/2025HC Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: Hon ’Ble Supreme Court? Iii. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.

Section 260A

…Its second substantive ground raised herein fails therefore. 12. We now advert to the assessee’s instant grievance seeking to allow the impugned provision wherein case law Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC); Calcutta Company Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC); & CIT v. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 374 (Delhi) i.e. the assessee itself, in paras 6,7,8 & 11 has held that such a provision based on scientific computation formula could indeed be allowed. 13. Learned counsel further reiterates the assessee’s stand that it has all along been recognizing the revenue from all projects…

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…iemens Aktiongesellschaft 177 Taxman 82 (Bom HC) iii. CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd. [1993] 202 IATR 1014 (Delhi) iv. DLF Commercial Project Corporation 379 ITR 538 (Delhi) v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC) vi. DECTA 237 ITR 190 AAR vii. ABB Ltd. 189 Taxmann 422 viii. Ernst and Young Ltd. 49 taxmann.com 386 (Kolkata ITAT) 13. We carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant. On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made by the AO solely for the reason of non-deduction of tax at source on payments made to…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. T BHIMJYANI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…e Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 held that there is no requirement of actual cash outflow in order to claim a liability as expenditure. He also relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of Calcutta Company Ltd (37 ITR 1)(SC) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) in this regard. In the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court explained the meaning of provision with respect to claiming deduction u/s. 37 of the Act: “10. What is a provision? This is the question which needs to be an…

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/s.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(OMR), Karapak…

Showing 1–20 of 341 · Page 1 of 18

...