CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd.

112 ITR 734High Court1978#4950 most cited

What is CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. authority for?

A deduction not claimed before the Income-tax Officer is not of much importance, as a bonafide claim can be made at any stage before a higher authority competent to grant relief.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. · 112 ITR 734 · deduction not claimed · bonafide claim · higher authority · competent to grant relief · Income-tax Officer

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 131(1a)section 153c(1)section 34section 292bblock periodadmission of additional evidencesection 153bsection 132(1)section 158b

Judgments citing CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd.

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 987/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goe…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 986/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…e (J&K) Constitution imposes an embargo on imposition and collection of tax if the same is without authority of law.” Page 79 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goet…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

…e (J&K) Constitution imposes an embargo on imposition and collection of tax if the same is without authority of law." Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goet…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goe…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goet…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goe…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goe…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goe…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goe…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ohn Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 80 of 147 10. Lastly, we find it useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore 112 ITR 734, holding that, the mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income-tax Officer, was not of much importance, since if the liability arises then a claim can be made in a bonafide manner at any stage before the higher authority, who is competent to grant relief. 11. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goe…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Kota Baran Tollway Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2025/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R
Section 80I

…t.Year –2014-15 - 5– properly instructed is over assessed the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. 2.14. The Honourable Bombay High Court in the case Of Central Provincess Mangnese Ore [112 ITR 734] has held that mere fact that a deduction was not claimed before the Income Tax Officer is not of much importance, if the liability arises, then a claim can be made bonafide at any stage before the higher authority who is competent to grant relief. 2.15. In view of the above, AO is directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act…

Bhavan Lakhman Ravaria, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 21(3)(1). Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1127/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebhavan Lakhman Ravaria V. Income Tax Officer- 21(3)(1) 401, D Wing, Golden Oak Mumbai Opposite D-Mart, Powai Hiranandani, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400076 Pan: Acwpr6513M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Khushiram Jadhwani Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…is placed on decision of hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in case of L’Oreal India Private Limited vs Add Commissioner of Income Tax being ITA NO 1198/Mum/2021 and ITA No 802/Mum/2022 Also in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd [112 ITR 734 (Bombay)] it has been held that an assessee maintaining books of account on mercantile system, is entitled to claim deduction in year in which liability arises Reliance is also placed on Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd [37 taxmann.com 239 (Delhi)] and Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Inc…

Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 3883/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ITA.No. 3883/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. CIT-7(2) DALSC, R-282, TTC Area of MIDC Aayakar Bhavan Thane Belapur Road M.K. Road Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400 701 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AABCR7594L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Ms. Rikita Joshi Department by : Shri Manish Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 27.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two ap…

Reliance Life Scinces P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

ITA 2301/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ITA.No. 3883/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. CIT-7(2) DALSC, R-282, TTC Area of MIDC Aayakar Bhavan Thane Belapur Road M.K. Road Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400 701 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AABCR7594L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Ms. Rikita Joshi Department by : Shri Manish Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 27.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two ap…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ows: (i) Kedarnath Jute v/s. CIT - [82 ITR 363, 367 (SC)] (ii) Sutlej Cotton - [116 ITR 1, 5 (SC)] [For income] (iii) CIT v/s. India Cement - [75 ITR 191,195 (SC)] (iv) CIT v/s. ShoorjiVallabhdas - [46 ITR 144 (SC)] (v) CIT v/s. Central Provinces Manganese - [112 ITR 734 (Bom)] (vi) ACIT v/s. Buckau Wolf- [157 ITR 751 (Bom)] (vii) CIT v/s. Century Enka Ltd. - [239 ITR 804 (Cal)] (viii) Tamilnadu Brick & Tile Mfg. Industrial Services Co-op. Society Ltd. v/s. CIT - [265 ITR 332 (Mad)] (ix) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)] (x) S. Arjun Singh v/s. CIT - [(1989) 175 ITR 9…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ows: (i) Kedarnath Jute v/s. CIT - [82 ITR 363, 367 (SC)] (ii) Sutlej Cotton - [116 ITR 1, 5 (SC)] [For income] (iii) CIT v/s. India Cement - [75 ITR 191,195 (SC)] (iv) CIT v/s. ShoorjiVallabhdas - [46 ITR 144 (SC)] (v) CIT v/s. Central Provinces Manganese - [112 ITR 734 (Bom)] (vi) ACIT v/s. Buckau Wolf- [157 ITR 751 (Bom)] (vii) CIT v/s. Century Enka Ltd. - [239 ITR 804 (Cal)] (viii) Tamilnadu Brick & Tile Mfg. Industrial Services Co-op. Society Ltd. v/s. CIT - [265 ITR 332 (Mad)] (ix) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)] (x) S. Arjun Singh v/s. CIT - [(1989) 175 ITR 9…

Embio Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2460/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 37(1)Section 72ASection 72A(2)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Embio Limited ACIT-15(1)(2), 501, 5th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. PAN: AAACE1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited ACIT-15(1)(1), 501, 5th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. PAN: AAACE1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Paresh Shaparia (AR) Respondent by : Shri D.G. Pansari (DR) Date of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3692/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, Agm Respondent By Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. DCIT, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN : AABCB8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Co. DCIT, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN : AABCB8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, AGM Respondent by Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.DR Date of hearing…

Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3405/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, Agm Respondent By Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. DCIT, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN : AABCB8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Co. DCIT, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN : AABCB8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, AGM Respondent by Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.DR Date of hearing…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Khol Bros Communications Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2759/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Him Found That An Amount Of Rs.39.24 Lacs & Rs. 11.87 Lacs Towards Sales Tax Liability & Vat Were Not Paid On Or Before The Specified Date. For Non Submission Of Any Evidence Or Explanation For Such Payment, The Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 145A R.W.S 43B Of The Act Added The Sum Of Rs. 51,11,000/- (Rs.39.24 Lacs + Rs.11.87 Lacs) Being Outstanding Sales Tax & Vat Liability To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

Section 145Section 145ASection 43B

…(2008) 302 ITR 181, 186 (Guj)/Deputy CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd (2009) 314 ITR 251, 256 (Guj.). Even if it is held that the liabilities are disputed liabilities, in the light of the decisions in the case of CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd [ 1978] 112 ITR 734 (Bom.)/CIT v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd [ 1992] 195 ITR 290(Delhi), a statutory liability of an assessee following the mercantile system, is allowable in the year in which it arises even though it is disputed by assessee. Similar is the case in respect of contingent liabilities in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case…

CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. (112 ITR 734) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax