CIT v. Balkrishna Industries Ltd.

88 Taxmann.com 273Supreme Court of India2017#5604 most cited

What is CIT v. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee discharges the present value of a future obligation, it does not constitute a 'benefit' accruing to the assessee, thus Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. · CIT vs. Sulzer India Ltd. · Section 41(1) · benefit · future liability · present value · discharge of liability · Supreme Court

Also reported as

300 CTR 209

Sections most often in play

Section 80IASection 40(a)(ii)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 2(42A)Section 244ASection 28(iv)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 38section 94section 80hsection 43(1)section 80hhcsection 80hhadditional depreciationsection 32(1)(iia)block of assetssection 41(1)initial assessment year

Judgments citing CIT v. Balkrishna Industries Ltd.

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palm Olive (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…l Bench) in Sulzer India Limited Vs. DCIT [134 TTJ 385]. Further, the revenue’s appeal on this issue for AY 2003-04 has been dismissed by aforesaid order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Finally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. [2017 88 Taxmann.com 273] has approved the view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court on merits rendered in CIT Vs. Sulzer India Ltd. [369 ITR 717]. In view of the admitted position, Ground No. 1 raised in revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 3.1 Rest of the grounds raised in revenue’s appeal as well as in cross- objections of the assessee are related with certain Transfer P…