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.

How many judgments cite Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

341 judgments on BharatTax cite Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 1), spanning 2000 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 147, Section 148.

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 1)

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 1561/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

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 Development 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 1168/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…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development 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 1167/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

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 Development 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 1166/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

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 and Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4303/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

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…