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 366,470 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

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /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) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1 2 3

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक 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 वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [PAN: AABCR7106G] Dy. Commissioner of Incom…

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 495/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…

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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…

Shri. Irulandi Thevar Vetrivel, Madurai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 240/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

…end of AYs 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The assessee had submitted that, this method of accounting for providing the year-end provisions was done in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (37 ITR 1). The Ld. CIT(A) is however noted to have observed that, the explanation given by the assessee was flawed because, if that be so, then ideally, the preceding year-end provisions was required to be reversed in the succeeding year and set-off against the matching expenses / payments claimed in that year. The assessee however has not disputed the f…

Shri. Irulandi Thevar Vetrivel, Madurai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 239/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

…end of AYs 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The assessee had submitted that, this method of accounting for providing the year-end provisions was done in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (37 ITR 1). The Ld. CIT(A) is however noted to have observed that, the explanation given by the assessee was flawed because, if that be so, then ideally, the preceding year-end provisions was required to be reversed in the succeeding year and set-off against the matching expenses / payments claimed in that year. The assessee however has not disputed the f…

Shir. Irulandi Thevar Vetrivel, Madurai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 236/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

…end of AYs 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The assessee had submitted that, this method of accounting for providing the year-end provisions was done in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (37 ITR 1). The Ld. CIT(A) is however noted to have observed that, the explanation given by the assessee was flawed because, if that be so, then ideally, the preceding year-end provisions was required to be reversed in the succeeding year and set-off against the matching expenses / payments claimed in that year. The assessee however has not disputed the f…

Shri. Irulandi Thevar Vetrivel, Madurai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 235/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37Section 65B

…end of AYs 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The assessee had submitted that, this method of accounting for providing the year-end provisions was done in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (37 ITR 1). The Ld. CIT(A) is however noted to have observed that, the explanation given by the assessee was flawed because, if that be so, then ideally, the preceding year-end provisions was required to be reversed in the succeeding year and set-off against the matching expenses / payments claimed in that year. The assessee however has not disputed the f…

Surana Mutha Bhansali, Pune vs. ACIT-Circle 5 Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1442/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 43CSection 80I

…ion certificate issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation dated 29.04.2017, he submitted that the completion certificate was received only on 29.04.2017. 11. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has held that estimated expenditure, which had to be incurred by the assessee in discharging a liability which it had already undertaken under terms of sale deeds of lands in question, was an accrued liability which according to mercantile system of accounting, assessee was enti…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S Care Health Insurance Limited (Earlier Known As M/S Religare Health Insurance Co. Ltd.)

ITA/304/2024HC Delhi30 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 37

…ITA 304/2024 & other connected matters Page 1 of 20 $~58, 11 & 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30 May 2024 + ITA 304/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Prashant Meharchandani, Sr.SC with Mr.Akshat Singh, Jr.SC, Ms.Ritika Vohra and Mr.Utkarsh Kandpal, Advs. versus M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD.) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra Sr.Adv.…

Metal Box India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 453/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Metal Box India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 3G, Meghdoot, 12, Rowland Vs. Income-tax, Circle-11(1), Road, Kolkata-700020. Kolkata. (PAN: AABCM9196M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld.…

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)

…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 were not received by it. Accordingly, the AO reiter…

M/S. Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1170/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…lic Works Department of the Government Maharashtra, and the past experience of the Company. Appellant has relied on following case laws in support of his claim: 1. Asstt. CIT v. CEC Soma CICI JV ITA Nos. 126 & 1822/Bang/2016 2. Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) : 1959 3. Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) : 2009 4. DCIT v. Ashiana Housing Ltd. ITA No. 714/Kol/2018 5. Grundfos Pumpas India Ltd. v. DCIT [TCA No. 1003 of 2008 3. On the facts and in the circumstances the ld. CIT(A) has erred in calculating the disallowance of provision at amount of Rs.6,29,20,000/- (b…

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

…d upon the following decisions wherein it has been held that liability 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) 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 (H…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…redemption entitled sale. The appellant's claim is thus, in full agreement with the concept of matching revenue and costs. In this respect, I find the appellant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (WB) 37 ITR 1 as apt and appropriate. In the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the context of a future discharge of liability in connection with development of plots,! held that the liability on the assessee having been imported, the Liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one merely because…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…redemption entitled sale. The appellant's claim is thus, in full agreement with the concept of matching revenue and costs. In this respect, I find the appellant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (WB) 37 ITR 1 as apt and appropriate. In the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the context of a future discharge of liability in connection with development of plots,! held that the liability on the assessee having been imported, the Liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one merely because…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…redemption entitled sale. The appellant's claim is thus, in full agreement with the concept of matching revenue and costs. In this respect, I find the appellant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (WB) 37 ITR 1 as apt and appropriate. In the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the context of a future discharge of liability in connection with development of plots,! held that the liability on the assessee having been imported, the Liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one merely because…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…redemption entitled sale. The appellant's claim is thus, in full agreement with the concept of matching revenue and costs. In this respect, I find the appellant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (WB) 37 ITR 1 as apt and appropriate. In the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the context of a future discharge of liability in connection with development of plots,! held that the liability on the assessee having been imported, the Liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one merely because…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…redemption entitled sale. The appellant's claim is thus, in full agreement with the concept of matching revenue and costs. In this respect, I find the appellant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (WB) 37 ITR 1 as apt and appropriate. In the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the context of a future discharge of liability in connection with development of plots,! held that the liability on the assessee having been imported, the Liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one merely because…

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…redemption entitled sale. The appellant's claim is thus, in full agreement with the concept of matching revenue and costs. In this respect, I find the appellant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (WB) 37 ITR 1 as apt and appropriate. In the case Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the context of a future discharge of liability in connection with development of plots,! held that the liability on the assessee having been imported, the Liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one merely because…

M/S.Pathanmthitta Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…each year-end on the basis of the latest, updated information. The case law in the matter is legion, viz., Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC); Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR428 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC). Page 3 ITANo. 431/Coch/2018(AY: 2014-15) Pathanamthitta District Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 6. Our second observation in the matter is that though the assessee’s Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2014 (copy of which, despite being called for, has not been placed on record) is dated (?) (i.e., prior to 30/10/2014), the recommendation by the AP, even…