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)

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ashiana Homes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1677/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Rajat Agarwal, FCA

Section 115JSection 263

…uded in the sale price of the plot and the developer could not charge-any extra amount from the customers in Inline Jar complete development of the project. The Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the Apex Court decisions in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. V CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC). Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 23 DTR (SC) 79 and in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 162 CTR (SC 325/[2000] 245 ITR -128 (SC), and held that the liability is allowable if it has arisen in the year though it may be quantified and discharged at a future date. Further, the assesses has placed reliance on the decision…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ly the 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. So is the view taken in Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. cit (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) 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…

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ashiana Housing Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1219/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8(1), M/S Ashiana Housing Ltd., बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th 11G, Everest House, 46/C, V/S. Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 01 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aadca 9093 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhruba Jyoti Ray, Jcit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Rajat Agarwal, Fca 09-01-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata’S Dated 02.04.2018, Passed In Case No. Cit(A), Kolkatk-3/10991/16-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Accepting The Assessee’S Future Development Expenses Claim Of ₹2,24,85,000/- By Ignoring The Fact That Same Was In The Nature Of A Mere Provision For Unascertained Liability Only. Our Attention Is Invited To The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action As Under:- “Decision: I Have Considered The Submissions Of The Assessee Carefully. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is Disallowance Of Rs.2,24,85,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Future Development

Section 143(3)Section 145

…uded in the sale price of the plot and the developer could not charge any extra amount from the customers in future for complete development of the project. The Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the Apex Court decisions in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC), Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 23 DTR (SC) 79 and in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 325 [(2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), and held that the liability is allowable if it has arisen in the year through it may be quantified and discharged at a future date. Further, the assessee has placed reliance on the decisi…

M/S the Estate vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/34/2010HC Karnataka10 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

…s a change to the extent of `14,69,820/- which eventually results in reduction of profits to that extent. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of ‘CALCUTTA CO. LTD Vs. CIT’ 37 ITR 1(SC), ‘BHARAT EARTH MOVERS Vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC), ‘METAL BOX COMPANY OF INDIA LTD Vs. THEIR WORKMEN’ 73 ITR 53 (SC), ‘JIWANRAM SHEODUTTRAI Vs. CIT’ 279 ITR 512 (Cal), ‘CIT Vs. 8 BURHWAL SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD.’ 82 ITR 784 (ALL) AND ‘SASSOON J DAVID AND CO. P LTD Vs. CIT’ 118 ITR 261 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel f…

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) RG-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3996/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Adit (It) 3(1) Vs. The Hongkong & Scindia House, Shanghai Banking R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd N.M.Road, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Mumbai – 38 Road Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & The Hongkong & Vs. Adit (It) 3(1) Shanghai Banking Scindia House, R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi N.M.Road, Road Mumbai – 38 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 37Section 44C

…llowing decisions : a) ACIT V/s M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd -ITA No.1835/Mum/2010 (AY-2003- 04) dated 25.1.2012; b) Syndicate bank V/s DCIT (Bang ITAT) -(2013) 38 taxmann.com 25); c) Bharat Earth Movers V/s CIT -245 ITR 428 (SC); d) Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC); e) Rotork India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 314 ITR 63 (SC); f) Taparia Tools Ltd v Joint CIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (Bom),; g) Vinitee Corporation (P) Ltd. (2005) 146 Taxman 313 (Delhi); and h) CIT v. Beema Manufacturers P. Ltd. (2003) 130 Taxman 400 (Mad) ITA No.2519/Mum/2004 and other six appeals 87. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has considered…

Khetawat Properties Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…o all such expenses, outgoings& costs for which the Company had incurred obligation under the Agreements with the flat purchasers. The Company’s claim in this regard is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Company Ltd Vs CIT (37 ITR 1).” 18. We also note that the principle of law laid in respect of claim of provision as in the present case of assessee before us, has been laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Company (supra) which was relied upon by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (Pune) in page 85-87 of PB can be seen as under: “In the case of ACIT Vs Ashok Buildc…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2094/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri V. SivakumarFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ee. In support of his contention that such a provision is allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the following case law: i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd vs.CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (200) 112 Taxman 61 (Supreme Court) iii) ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of IBP Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (2003) 129 Taxmann.com 26 (Kol) iv) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insilco Ltd (2009) 179 Taxmann 55 (Del.) v) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Monic…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2093/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri V. SivakumarFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ee. In support of his contention that such a provision is allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the following case law: i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd vs.CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (200) 112 Taxman 61 (Supreme Court) iii) ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of IBP Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (2003) 129 Taxmann.com 26 (Kol) iv) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insilco Ltd (2009) 179 Taxmann 55 (Del.) v) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Monic…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2092/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sri V. SivakumarFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ee. In support of his contention that such a provision is allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the following case law: i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd vs.CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (200) 112 Taxman 61 (Supreme Court) iii) ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of IBP Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (2003) 129 Taxmann.com 26 (Kol) iv) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insilco Ltd (2009) 179 Taxmann 55 (Del.) v) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Monic…

Vikram Developers & Promoters, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2796/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure

Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…Counsel for the assessee argued vehemently stating that the entire gross receipts cannot be taxed and relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of (i) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC) and (ii) Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC). The assessee made the written submissions in this regard and the same are extracted as under :- “2. Submission w.r.t. Club-house receipts - AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14: 2.1 Ground No. 1 to 3 - 80-IB(10) on club-house receipts: Vide Ground No. 1 to 3, in AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14, appellant has challenged non-grant of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the…

M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2795/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure

Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…Counsel for the assessee argued vehemently stating that the entire gross receipts cannot be taxed and relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of (i) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC) and (ii) Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC). The assessee made the written submissions in this regard and the same are extracted as under :- “2. Submission w.r.t. Club-house receipts - AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14: 2.1 Ground No. 1 to 3 - 80-IB(10) on club-house receipts: Vide Ground No. 1 to 3, in AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14, appellant has challenged non-grant of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the…

Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…f a year; and in assessing the amount of the profits and gains of a year account must necessarily be taken of all losses incurred, otherwise you would not arrive at the true profits and gains." In Badridas Daga v CIT(34, ITR 10,15) and Calcutta Co Ltd V CIT,(37 ITR 1,9)the Supreme Court quoted the observation of Lord Russell with approval and held that an item of loss or expenditure not falling within any of the express deductions may be allowed if it is deductible on ordinary principles of commercial accounting. The scheme of these sections is that profits and gains must be computed subject to certain express…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1276/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…f a year; and in assessing the amount of the profits and gains of a year account must necessarily be taken of all losses incurred, otherwise you would not arrive at the true profits and gains." In Badridas Daga v CIT(34, ITR 10,15) and Calcutta Co Ltd V CIT,(37 ITR 1,9)the Supreme Court quoted the observation of Lord Russell with approval and held that an item of loss or expenditure not falling within any of the express deductions may be allowed if it is deductible on ordinary principles of commercial accounting. The scheme of these sections is that profits and gains must be computed subject to certain express…

M/S. Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5797/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble, [Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…harged at a future dated and, there is difficulty in estimating the correct amount thereof would not convert this definite and absolute liability into conditional one as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box Company India Ltd. v. Their Workment [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC). ……………………. …………In the present case, the works have been executed after the expiry of the stipulated period. The stipulation as to the payment of liquidated damages towards delay in executing the contract work is related…