CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.

352 ITR 88High Court2013#5277 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. authority for?

A provision created by an assessee for wage arrears in anticipation of a pay revision cannot be treated as an unascertained liability if there is no dispute regarding the terms of employment and the only dispute is about the quantification of wages.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. · 352 ITR 88 · provision for wage arrears · unascertained liability · pay revision · terms of employment · quantification of wages · adhoc provision · Section 37(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 46(4)Section 36(1)(viii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(via)section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(1)(v)section 36(1)(viii)section 36(2)section 36(1)(viia)prohibited by lawinterest on securitiessection 10(34)section 14a(2)infrastructure facility

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.

HAFFKINE BIO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 5352/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mayur MakadiaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

…ployees and calculation the revised salary is duly enclosed in APB page 43 to 63. 7. The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is squarely applicable in the assessee’s case, CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. reported in 352 ITR 88 (Del.) the relevant paragraph 7 to 9 is reproduced as below: “7. In Bharat Earth Movers (supra) (decided by the Supreme Court), the question which the court had to consider was whether the provision for meeting earned-leave-encashment by the employee was an admissible deduction in the hands of the employer. The court reiterated and applied its pr…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

…arrears, the assessee\nhas made adhoc provision for wage arrears. The assessee further submitted that this\nissue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals (2013) 352 ITR 88, where\nthe Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that once there is no dispute with regard to terms\nof employment between the workers and officers with the bank and dispute is only\nwith regard to quantification of the compensation of wages, then provision created\nby the assessee for wage arrears in anticipation for revision in pay cannot be treated\na…

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

…ge arrears, the assessee has made adhoc provision for wage arrears. The assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals (2013) 352 ITR 88, where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that once there is no dispute with regard to terms ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 36 of employment between the workers and officers with the bank and dispute is only with regard to quantification of the compensation of wages, then provision created by the assessee for wage arrears in anticipation for revision…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ge arrears, the assessee has made adhoc provision for wage arrears. The assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals (2013) 352 ITR 88, where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that once there is no dispute with regard to terms of employment between the workers and officers with the bank and dispute is only with regard to revision in pay cannot be treated as unascertained liability. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the AO should be deleted. 43. The Ld.DR on the…

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE- ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ge arrears, the assessee has made adhoc provision for wage arrears. The assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals (2013) 352 ITR 88, where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that once there is no dispute with regard to terms of employment between the workers and officers with the bank and dispute is only with regard to revision in pay cannot be treated as unascertained liability. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the AO should be deleted. 43. The Ld.DR on the…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ge arrears, the assessee has made adhoc provision for wage arrears. The assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals (2013) 352 ITR 88, where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that once there is no dispute with regard to terms of employment between the workers and officers with the bank and dispute is only with regard to revision in pay cannot be treated as unascertained liability. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the AO should be deleted. 43. The Ld.DR on the…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ge arrears, the assessee has made adhoc provision for wage arrears. The assessee further submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals (2013) 352 ITR 88, where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that once there is no dispute with regard to terms of employment between the workers and officers with the bank and dispute is only with regard to revision in pay cannot be treated as unascertained liability. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the AO should be deleted. 43. The Ld.DR on the…

EASYACCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COPR WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 587/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.40, Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1), Mussuri Subramaniam Salai, Chennai. (Oliver Road), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aabce 4646G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060282095(1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.09.2017. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ao For Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act, As The Ao During The Original Assessment Proceedings Has Formed An Opinion After Seeking Explanation & After Examining The Present Issue Of Factoring Of Income U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Hence, Now Reopening Is Bad In Law. The Assessee Also Raised The Interconnected Issue, Which Is On Merits That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Beig Factoring Income In The Hands Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, FCA &For Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…226 Taxman 364. While such philanthropic activity are laudable, it perse cannot constitute deductible business expenditure and assessee has to prove the corresponding expediency in making out such donations as held in CIT Vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (Del) 352 ITR 88 and CIT & Anr Vs Wipro Ltd. (Kar) 360 ITR 658. The above amount of Rs. 331.27 lakhs being represents income escaped under various heads and is to be brought to tax. In view of reasons mentioned above, the AO had reasons to believe that your income for AY 2012-13 had escaped assessment and notice u/s 148 was issued.” From the above reason and the…

NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 18, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1148/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…B of the Act. The ITAT in the impugned Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1148 & 1041/Del/2018 order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [20001 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order of the CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behind by…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), , NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1041/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…B of the Act. The ITAT in the impugned Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1148 & 1041/Del/2018 order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [20001 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order of the CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behind by…

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 788/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2009-10 Ito, Vs. M/S. Karnataka State Industrial Co-Operative Ward – 3(1), Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. No.11, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaaat 3503 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2014 Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. This Appeal Was Dismissed By This Tribunal By Order Dated 14.01.2016 On The Ground That The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Was Less Than Rs.10 Lakhs & By Following The Cbdt Circular No.21/2015 Laying Down The Monetary Limit For Filing The Appeals By The Department. The Revenue Filed Appeal Before Hon’Ble High Court In Ita No.502/2016 & The Hon’Ble High Court In Order Dated 27.01.2021 Held That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Of The Department Was More Than Rs.10 Lakhs & Therefore The Tribunal Should Decide The Appeal Of The Revenue On Merits. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36

…of DA arrears payable as above has been furnished by he assessee and the details are at pages 44 to 59 of the assessee’s Paper Book. 7. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., 352 ITR 88 (Delhi) in which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court took the view that even where a probable liability on account of revision of rates pending settlement with the employees can be claimed as a deduction provided the estimation is fair. Even in respect of provision for audit fees, the assessee explained that the same is cost of internal audit payable upt…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NTPC ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4684/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Pramita M. Biswa, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Sh. Ashish
Section 60

…ged by the assessee during the year and the same could not be named as an uncertain provision. He placed the reliance of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs CIT (245 ITR 248), CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, 352 ITR 88 (Del), Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) in support of his contention. 6.7 Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld. DR that the legality of the view taken by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) revolves around the question as to the status of the impugned employees - whether they are the legal employees of…

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12 NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA/541/2019HC Delhi06 Feb 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…ed pay is important and not the date of signing of the agreement or its approval granted by DPE. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical, Limited 352 ITR 88 (Delhi);Bharat Earth Movers vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 245 ITR 428 (SC). Besides, the learned counsel also relied upon the DPE - guidelines relating to wage policies and related matters. 10. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, senior standing counsel for Revenue along with Mr. Deepak Anand on the other hand supported the decision of the ITAT and arg…

ACIT,CIR-2, LTU - 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 728/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.....................................................................................Appellant 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………..................................................Respondent 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 728/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………............................................Cross-Objector 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.................................................................................Respondent 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri D.S. Damle, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10, 20219 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17Th , 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 23, Kolkata Dated 29.01.2019 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019. 2. In The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue, The Following Grounds Are Raised:

Section 10(15)Section 201Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM] Assessment Year: 2012-13 A.C.I.T, CIRCLE – 2, LTU, Kolkata.....................................................................................Appellant 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. M/s. UCO Bank……………………………………………………..................................................Respondent 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [PAN : AAACU 3561 B] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 728/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. UCO Bank…………………………………………………….............…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPON.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 633/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R
Section 143(3)

…219 CTR 147(Ker.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the ITA Nos.633, 652 & 2716/Ahd/2013 M/s Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp. Ltd., Baroda. Asst. Year –2009-10 & 2007-08 case of CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. reported at (2013) 352 ITR 88 (Delhi). 15.2. On the contrary, CIT-DR supported the orders of the authorities below. We find that the AO had disallowed the expenditure by observing that “I have considered the submission of the assessee but the same is not acceptable. The liability to pay the arrears of pay had not crystallized during the year under consideration since the final…

PR. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZER LIMITED

ITA/551/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e Act. The ITAT in the ITANos. 782,784,817 and551 of2016 Page 3 of 6 impugned order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behindby th…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD .

ITA/784/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e Act. The ITAT in the ITANos. 782,784,817 and551 of2016 Page 3 of 6 impugned order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behindby th…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.

ITA/782/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…e Act. The ITAT in the ITANos. 782,784,817 and551 of2016 Page 3 of 6 impugned order followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (Del) and upheld the order ofthe CIT (A). 7. The Court's attention is drawn by learned counsel for the Assessee to the decision in CIT v Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 341 (Del). The ratio of the above decision is that where there are actuarial reports supporting the provision to meet a contingent liability, it cannot be gone behindby th…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FIVES CALL KCP LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 2859/CHNY/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarअपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A.No.2859/Mds/2014 अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year : 1999-2000 वष" Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Five Cail Kcp Ltd Tax, Vs. Ramakrishna Buildings, Corporate Circle - 2(1), No.2. Dr. P.V. Cherian Crescent, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaacf 1763G]

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80Section 80H

…(A) considered the findings of the Assessing Officer and submissions and the grounds argued by the Ld. AR and dealt on the provisions of section 80-HHB of the Act exhaustively and relied on judicial decision in the case of CIT Vs Bharath Heavy Electrical Ltd, 352 ITR 88, (Delhi) and observed that the income of foreign projects have to be considered separately for determining the deduction u/s. 80HHB and the action of the Assessing Officer in setting of the loss of :-4-: I.T.A. No. 2859/Mds/2014 5th project is not justified and directed Assessing Officer not to set off the loss of the 5th project in determining…

PEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3910/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Asstt. Yrs: 2007-08 Pec Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit,Range-14, Hansalaya, 9Th Floor, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. & Ita Nos. 5523/Del/2011 & 3739/Del/2013 Asstt. Yrs: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Addl. Cit,Range-14, Vs. Pec Ltd., Hansalaya, 9Th Floor, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Agrawal Ca Department By : Ms. Kesang Y. Sherpa Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2016. Date Of Order : 10/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agrawal CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Sherpa Sr. DR

…the Board of Directors. Admittedly, the provision is within 5% limit fixed by the Government of India and duly approved by Board. It is not disputed that in earlier years also the provision had been allowed to assessee. 11. In the case of CIT Vs. BHEL (2013) 352 ITR 88 (Del.), the assessee, during the assessment years 1988-89 and 1998-99 claimed addition of its liability on account of wage revision. It submitted that even though the wage revision proposals had been submitted to the competent bodies or authorities, the liability was certain and ascertained on the basis of its past experience and after taking i…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (352 ITR 88) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax