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

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1643/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1643/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Aditya Birla Fashion & बिधम / Acit, Cpc, Retail Ltd. Piramal Agastya Bengaluru, Vs. Corporate Park, Building A, Karnataka-560500. 4Th & 5Th Floor, L.B.S. Road, Kurla-Mumbai-400070. स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp2371C (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Alam, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…employees but also the present value of any payments in respect of their services in that year to be made in a subsequent year if it can be satisfactorily estimated. So is the view taken in Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal (1959) 37 ITR 1 wherein this court has 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 the 6 Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. liability was to be discharged at a future date. There may be some difficulty in the estimation thereof but that woul…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 845/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…e average of previous year’s warranty settlement is allowable expenditure. Same view was taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT, 340 ITR 46. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd vs CIT, 37 ITR 1, held that where the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting is entitled for deduction of the expenditure which is incidental to the business on accrual basis though it was not actually incurred during the relevant accounting year. The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Indian Transformers Ltd, 270 ITR 259, held that provisio…

M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 399/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…e average of previous year’s warranty settlement is allowable expenditure. Same view was taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT, 340 ITR 46. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd vs CIT, 37 ITR 1, held that where the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting is entitled for deduction of the expenditure which is incidental to the business on accrual basis though it was not actually incurred during the relevant accounting year. The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Indian Transformers Ltd, 270 ITR 259, held that provisio…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes on the afore-said terms of earlier year

ITA 6386/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6386/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ald Automotive Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 13, Floor, Maker 400020. Chamber-Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca0924K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai Dated 25.07.2017 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That This Is A Second Round Before This Tribunal. In The First Round, The Tribunal Has Passed Order (Ita. No.6386/Mum/2017) By Order Dated 10.04.2019 Wherein The Tribunal Had Adjudicated Ground No. 1 Preferred By The Revenue. But Did Not Adjudicate Ground No. 2 Preferred By Revenue. Therefore, The Revenue Preferred Miscellaneous Application (Ma) No. 573/Mum/2019 Which Was Decided On 02.06.2021, Wherein Tribunal Was Pleased To Recall The Order Passed In The First Round Dated 10.04.2019 For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2. Thus, This Appeal Has Come Up For Hearing For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2 Which Reads As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 143(3)

…therefore, corresponding services, are liable to be rendered over the lease term – as indicated by the corresponding expenditure, the accounting treatment is in consonance with AS-9. The assessee’s reliance on the decisions in Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), both advocating the matching principle, is apposite. The AO shall cause necessary verification as indicated above, subject to whose findings of fact we allow the assessee’s claim. We may further add that the assessee’s plea is acceptable only qua such expenditure…

M.P.Birla Institute of Fundamental Reserch., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Exemption-Cir-1(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 479/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…he payments actually made to his employees but also the present value of any payments in respect of their services in that year to be made in a subsequent year if it can be satisfactorily estimated. 6. So is the view taken in Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1, wherein this Court has 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 the liability was to be discharged at a future date. There may be some difficulty in the estimation thereof but that would not convert the accrued liability into…

M.P.Birla Institute of Fundamental Reserch., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Exemption-Cir-1(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 478/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…he payments actually made to his employees but also the present value of any payments in respect of their services in that year to be made in a subsequent year if it can be satisfactorily estimated. 6. So is the view taken in Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1, wherein this Court has 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 the liability was to be discharged at a future date. There may be some difficulty in the estimation thereof but that would not convert the accrued liability into…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. V.Krishnamurthy, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2558/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2558/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri. V. Krishnamurthy, Income Tax, V. No. 66, Eldams Road, Non Corporate Circle -20(1), Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aacpk-6064-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

…s :-8-: ITA. No:2558/Chny/2018 (a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case No. .307/M/807/M/12/M/12 of CIT v. WoodWard Governors India Pvt Ltd. 179 Taxman 326 (SC). (b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v. CIT (34 ITR 10) Calcutta Co. Ltd v. CIT (37 ITR 1). (c) No.807 /M/807 /M/12/M/12 The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri T. Pitamber, Proprietor in ITA Nos. 868 & 869/Mum./2010 dated 22.07.2011. (d) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramchander Shiv Narayan v / s CIT, 111 ITR 263 (SC). (e) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Jethabhai Hirji & Jethabhai Ramdas. (f) Hon'ble Del…

Mukesh Soni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…rstood to be such under ordinary 14 Mukesh Soni vs. ITO commercial principles . At the same time section 30 to 43C expressly provide what can be deducted in computing business income [ reliance is placed on the judgement of Calcutta co. ltd. v/s CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (S.C.)] 18. That the action of the A.O. in treating the cash sales of Rs. 29,65,226 made during the period 01/04/2016 to 02/11/2016 as afterthought and thereby coming to the conclusion that the cash deposit in bank in the form of SBN’s of Rs. 32,71,000/- as unexplained is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis. 19. It is respectfully submitted…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…heet is an item ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 48 of 60 of expenditure under s. 37(1). Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd., v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deduction for a business liability which has arisen during a particular year should be allowed in that year in its entirety. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned AO therefore erred in disallowing the same and he prayed that the said disallowanc…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…heet is an item ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 48 of 60 of expenditure under s. 37(1). Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd., v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deduction for a business liability which has arisen during a particular year should be allowed in that year in its entirety. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned AO therefore erred in disallowing the same and he prayed that the said disallowanc…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…heet is an item ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 48 of 60 of expenditure under s. 37(1). Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd., v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deduction for a business liability which has arisen during a particular year should be allowed in that year in its entirety. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned AO therefore erred in disallowing the same and he prayed that the said disallowanc…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…heet is an item ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 48 of 60 of expenditure under s. 37(1). Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd., v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deduction for a business liability which has arisen during a particular year should be allowed in that year in its entirety. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned AO therefore erred in disallowing the same and he prayed that the said disallowanc…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…heet is an item ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 48 of 60 of expenditure under s. 37(1). Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd., v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deduction for a business liability which has arisen during a particular year should be allowed in that year in its entirety. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned AO therefore erred in disallowing the same and he prayed that the said disallowanc…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…heet is an item ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 48 of 60 of expenditure under s. 37(1). Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd., v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC) where the Apex Court held that deduction for a business liability which has arisen during a particular year should be allowed in that year in its entirety. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned AO therefore erred in disallowing the same and he prayed that the said disallowanc…

John Cockerill India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu-1, Mumbai

ITA 3195/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suyog Bhave, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…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 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, reproduced as under: ‘Recognition of…

ACIT Cent. Circle-4, Thane vs. M/S. Eca Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1523/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 37

…s employees but also the present value of any payments in respect of their services in that year to be made in a subsequent year if it can be satisfactorily estimated. So is the view taken in Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, West Bengal (1959) 37 ITR 1 wherein this court has 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 the liability was to be discharged at a future date. There may be some difficulty in the estimation thereof but that would not convert the accrued liability into…

The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 336/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

…March, 2014 for those expenditures for which the bills were received in next year and the payment was also made in the next year. Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Company Limited –vs.- CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); Bharat Earth Movers –vs.- CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC); CIT –vs.- Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd. Reported in [2014] 364 ITR 499 (Karnataka). Deduction should be allowed in respect of these expenses. 54. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below. 55. After hearing the rival submissions and peru…

The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 335/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

…March, 2014 for those expenditures for which the bills were received in next year and the payment was also made in the next year. Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Company Limited –vs.- CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); Bharat Earth Movers –vs.- CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC); CIT –vs.- Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd. Reported in [2014] 364 ITR 499 (Karnataka). Deduction should be allowed in respect of these expenses. 54. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below. 55. After hearing the rival submissions and peru…

The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 334/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

…March, 2014 for those expenditures for which the bills were received in next year and the payment was also made in the next year. Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Company Limited –vs.- CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); Bharat Earth Movers –vs.- CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC); CIT –vs.- Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd. Reported in [2014] 364 ITR 499 (Karnataka). Deduction should be allowed in respect of these expenses. 54. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below. 55. After hearing the rival submissions and peru…

The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 333/KOL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 43B

…March, 2014 for those expenditures for which the bills were received in next year and the payment was also made in the next year. Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Company Limited –vs.- CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); Bharat Earth Movers –vs.- CIT reported in [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC); CIT –vs.- Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd. Reported in [2014] 364 ITR 499 (Karnataka). Deduction should be allowed in respect of these expenses. 54. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below. 55. After hearing the rival submissions and peru…