Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1959#224 most cited

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

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, 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 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT · mercantile system of accounting · Section 37 · allowable deductions · provision for liabilities · unascertained liabilities · deferred payment

Sections most often in play

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

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

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/576/2015HC Karnataka21 Jul 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260Section 260A

…that the liability had not been estimated with reasonable accuracy? (iii) The tribunal committed an error in holding that the principles enunciated in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers (245 ITR 42) and Calcutta Co. Ltd. (37 ITR 1) were not applicable to the present case? And (iv) The tribunal thus failed to appreciate that the method followed by the appellant as on a scientific basis, besides being fair and reasonable and that therefore the provisioned amount represented an accrued liability which 4 was accordingly allowable as a deduction while computing its incom…

DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3173/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1) M/S. Ald Automotive P. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafca0924K

Section 2(3)Section 32

…m on the decision in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Mahindra Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. (2010) 5 taxmann.com 55, CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Ltd. (2010) 195 Taxman 328 (Del), D.E. Sasoon and Company Ltd. vs CIT, 261 ITR 27 (SC), Calcutta Company Ltd. vs CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC), Bharat Earth Moviers Ltd. vs CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC), CIT vs BHEL, 239 ITR 756, CIT vs Bank of India, 218 ITR 371 and CIT vs IBM, 161 ITR 673 (Bom).” 2.2 We find that, as observed by the learned CIT(A), that the issue is covered by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 wherein it has been held that section…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…lity which has arisen in the relevant accounting year is an allowable deduction even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date: a) Assessee’s own case decided in favour by CIT (A) for AY 2003-04 b) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC) c) Metal Box (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) d) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) e) Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC). f) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 g) CIT v. Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd. : 278 ITR 337 (Del.) h) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) 26…

Cmi Fpe Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2334/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2334/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Cmi Fpe Limited Asst. Cit-Ltu, World Trade बनाम/ Centre-I, 28Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mehta House, Plot No. 64, Road No. 13, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 005 Vs. Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf 0252 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. K. Ved ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Pandian सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.03.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.06.2016 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)-24, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.12.2012, Partly Allowing 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.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 19.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is With Regard To The Confirmation Of The Disallowance Toward Provision For Loss On Contracts Made By The Assessee In Its’ Accounts For Rs.125.39 Lacs. The Assessee Is A Domestic Company & Its Principal

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri S. Pandian
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145

…ing time and again that in the absence of any specific provision of law to the contrary, the principles of commercial accounting shall apply. Reference in this regard may also be made with profit to its’ celebrated decision in Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC). Once, on the basis of the 5 CMI FPE Limited vs. Asst. CIT-LTU facts and the information on record, the loss is likely to arise, the same has to be provided for under the prudence mandate, which is what AS-7 (also notified by the Central Government) in substance provides under the segment ‘Recognition of expected losses’ vide paras 35 and 36, r…

Ge Capital Services India vs. Addl CIT Range 2

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2898/DEL/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…of income and the system postulates the existence of tax insofar as moneis due and payable by the parties to whom they are debited. Reliance was placed on As considered in Keshav Mills Ltd. vs CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); and CIT vs S.M.Holding & Finance P.Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 370. On the strength of these decision and arguments it was submitted that the expenses were to be allowed proportionately i.e. the expenditure pertaining to the relevant year was to be allowed in the year under consideration and the balance had to be deferred to the subsequent year, as…

DCIT Circle 12 (1) vs. G.E. Capital Services India

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2808/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…of income and the system postulates the existence of tax insofar as moneis due and payable by the parties to whom they are debited. Reliance was placed on As considered in Keshav Mills Ltd. vs CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); and CIT vs S.M.Holding & Finance P.Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 370. On the strength of these decision and arguments it was submitted that the expenses were to be allowed proportionately i.e. the expenditure pertaining to the relevant year was to be allowed in the year under consideration and the balance had to be deferred to the subsequent year, as…

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

…e 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 is postponed to a future date. But in the pr…

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

…e 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 is postponed to a future date. But in the pr…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.3947, 3948 & 3949/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) DCIT, Circle 13(1), Vs. M/s. National Fertilizes Ltd., New Delhi Core-III, Scope Complex, 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi GIR / PAN :AAACN0189N I.T.A.Nos.3520, 3519, 3518 & 3517/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively) M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), Core III, Scope Complex, New Delhi 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road,…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.3947, 3948 & 3949/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) DCIT, Circle 13(1), Vs. M/s. National Fertilizes Ltd., New Delhi Core-III, Scope Complex, 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi GIR / PAN :AAACN0189N I.T.A.Nos.3520, 3519, 3518 & 3517/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively) M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), Core III, Scope Complex, New Delhi 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road,…

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)

…a matching. But only that, firstly, the said accounting concept stands statutorily accepted, being only being only an expression of a recognized principle of the commercial accounting, as well as judicially recognized (refer: Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (supra)) and, two, that in the facts and circumstances case, the nature of income and expenditure being the same, that is, in the nature of interest, both accrue on a day-to-day basis and, therefore, the matching principle is a concomitant of accrual. Case law 4.12 We have perused the case law…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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) Assessee Company by Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by : Shri Ritesh…

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

…asonable 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 special discount in the relevant year under consideration (i.e. FY 2003-04), we humbly request before your honour…

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

…(2002) 257 ITR 694 (Gau.), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Joint CIT (2002) 77 TTJ (Nag-Trib) 401, CIT v. Indian Metal & Metallurgical Corporation, (1964) 51 ITR 240 (Mad) and Sirsa Industries v. CIT (1989) 1781TR 437 (P & H), Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC), Addl. CIT v. T Nagireddy & Co. (1976) 105 ITR 669 (AP) and Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). The A.O. observed that there is a dispute between BMC and the assessee regarding payment of certain dues and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble jursidictional High Court. In the meanwhile, assessee made a provisi…

Aavaas Realtors, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

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

ITA 3054/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Aavaas Realtors, Pr. Commissioner Of Income 711, Arun Chambers, Tax-19, Room No.228, 2Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 034 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Pan: Aanfa9849A Mumbai – 400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K.P. Kapadia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 263

…the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.” ITA No.346 of 2009 vide order dated 29.11.10 and further of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT” (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where the assessee is engaged in the business of land and property development and is following the mercantile system of accounting, expenditure actually incurred but not during the relevant year is still allowable, if such expenditure has been incidental to the carrying on of the business.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 775/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…d which admittedly have a nexus with the business of the assessee, it was treated as business expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Company Ltd. v. CIT[1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CITv. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.[1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd.[2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi).” 7.9 For the reasons stated above, disallowance made of Rs. 27,22,514/- out of total claim of expenditure of Rs. 34,03,142/- is deleted. G…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…d which admittedly have a nexus with the business of the assessee, it was treated as business expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Company Ltd. v. CIT[1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CITv. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.[1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd.[2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi).” 7.9 For the reasons stated above, disallowance made of Rs. 27,22,514/- out of total claim of expenditure of Rs. 34,03,142/- is deleted. G…

M/S Housing & Urban Devlopment Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3366/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ability which has definitely arisen cannot be regarded as a contingent liability merely because it is to be discharged at a future date and the cost of discharging it is not definite. In the case of Calcutta Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1959) 37 ITR 1, the facts of the case were that the assessee bought land and sold them in plot which to be made fit for building purposes. At the time of purchase, the purchaser paid a portion of the purchase price and undertook to pay the balance amount in installment. In the relevant accounting year, the assessee received cash of Rs. 29,392/- as sale price, but…

M/S Housing & Urban Devlopment Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3365/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ability which has definitely arisen cannot be regarded as a contingent liability merely because it is to be discharged at a future date and the cost of discharging it is not definite. In the case of Calcutta Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1959) 37 ITR 1, the facts of the case were that the assessee bought land and sold them in plot which to be made fit for building purposes. At the time of purchase, the purchaser paid a portion of the purchase price and undertook to pay the balance amount in installment. In the relevant accounting year, the assessee received cash of Rs. 29,392/- as sale price, but…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1562/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ability which has definitely arisen cannot be regarded as a contingent liability merely because it is to be discharged at a future date and the cost of discharging it is not definite. In the case of Calcutta Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1959) 37 ITR 1, the facts of the case were that the assessee bought land and sold them in plot which to be made fit for building purposes. At the time of purchase, the purchaser paid a portion of the purchase price and undertook to pay the balance amount in installment. In the relevant accounting year, the assessee received cash of Rs. 29,392/- as sale price, but…