CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd.

251 ITR 15High Court2001#1516 most cited

What is CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. authority for?

Wealth tax paid by an assessee cannot be added back to net profit for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115J or section 115JB, as wealth tax is not included in the definition of 'income-tax' under the Explanation to these sections.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Echjay Forgings · Echjay Forgings · section 115J · section 115JB · book profit · wealth tax · addition to net profit · computation of book profit · Minimum Alternate Tax · MAT · wealth tax not income-tax

Also reported as

116 Taxmann 322

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 14ASection 1963

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhesection 115jb(2)section 92fsection 115jasection 10bbook profitswritten down valuesection 115jdeduction u/s 80iasection 80asection 32(1)section 115jb

Judgments citing CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd.

Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7388/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15
Section 115J

…Corporation Ltd. vs. Add. CIT, ITA 541/2019, (Delhi HC) (vi) PCIT vs. NHPC Ltd., ITA 356, 2015, P&H High Court (v) DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314, Gujarat HC (vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC), (vii) CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd., 251 ITR 15, Bombay HC (viii) M/s. Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC) (ix) Ircon International Limited, v. Add. CIT, ITA Nos. 1825/Del/2005, ITAT DELHI (x) Asahi India Glass Limited v. DCIT, ITA No.1637/Del/2014, ITAT DELHI (xi) M/s. Hil Lifecare Limited vs. ACIT in ITA No.ITA No.123/Coch/2017, 11.06.2018. (xii) The National Small Indu…

Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4307/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri Sajit V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)

…of the Accounting Standards Of ICAI and the Method of Actuarial valuation supported by the valuation report and relied on the Judicial decisions: “1. CIT Vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., [2016] 237 Taxman 572 (Bombay). 2. CIT Vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt Ltd., [2001] 251 ITR 15 (Bombay). ITA Nos. 4307 /Mum/2019 Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 3. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 251 (SC). 7. We find the assessee company has for the first time has filed actuarial valuation report of Gratuity liability as on 31.03.2016. Therefore, the Ld.DR of the revenue submitted that an opportunity be pr…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asahi India Glass Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…ITA No.1638/Del./2014 ITA No.2501/Del./2014 an unascertained liability and added in terms of clause (c) to Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the I.T. Act. 53. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Private Limited reported in 251 ITR 15 has held that since provision for gratuity was made on the basis of actuarial valuation, it was an ascertained liability and the said amount would not be added to the net profits. Similar view has been held by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 82 TTJ 61. The various other decisions relied on by…

M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1638/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…ITA No.1638/Del./2014 ITA No.2501/Del./2014 an unascertained liability and added in terms of clause (c) to Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the I.T. Act. 53. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Private Limited reported in 251 ITR 15 has held that since provision for gratuity was made on the basis of actuarial valuation, it was an ascertained liability and the said amount would not be added to the net profits. Similar view has been held by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 82 TTJ 61. The various other decisions relied on by…

M/S Kmg Infotech Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 329/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mulaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri H Padamchand Khincha, C.A
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.329/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 KMF Infotech Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Unit 201/202, Vanguard Rise, 163, Circle-4(1)(1), Konena Agrahara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 017. PAN - AABCK 2065 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.126/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. KMF Infotech Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), Unit 201/202, Vanguard Rise, 163, Bengaluru. Konena Agrahara, Bengaluru-560 017. PAN - AABCK…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3805/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…debts and doubtful advances were infact assets and not liabilities and thus, no adjustment under clause (c) of Explanation-II, below provision of section 115JBwas to be called for, relying on the judgement in the case of CIT Vs Echjay Forging (P) Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bombay). 20.3 The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of assessee with the detailed reasons mentioned in para 16.1.2 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer, since provision was made, it clearly signified that liabilities were unascertained liabilities. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that while computing the busin…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 705/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…debts and doubtful advances were infact assets and not liabilities and thus, no adjustment under clause (c) of Explanation-II, below provision of section 115JBwas to be called for, relying on the judgement in the case of CIT Vs Echjay Forging (P) Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bombay). 20.3 The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of assessee with the detailed reasons mentioned in para 16.1.2 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer, since provision was made, it clearly signified that liabilities were unascertained liabilities. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that while computing the busin…

DCIT, Circle-11(1) vs. Ircon International Ltd

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2234/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…debts and doubtful advances were infact assets and not liabilities and thus, no adjustment under clause (c) of Explanation-II, below provision of section 115JBwas to be called for, relying on the judgement in the case of CIT Vs Echjay Forging (P) Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bombay). 20.3 The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of assessee with the detailed reasons mentioned in para 16.1.2 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer, since provision was made, it clearly signified that liabilities were unascertained liabilities. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that while computing the busin…

Ircon International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3804/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…debts and doubtful advances were infact assets and not liabilities and thus, no adjustment under clause (c) of Explanation-II, below provision of section 115JBwas to be called for, relying on the judgement in the case of CIT Vs Echjay Forging (P) Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bombay). 20.3 The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of assessee with the detailed reasons mentioned in para 16.1.2 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer, since provision was made, it clearly signified that liabilities were unascertained liabilities. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that while computing the busin…

Ircon International Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-11

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1825/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…debts and doubtful advances were infact assets and not liabilities and thus, no adjustment under clause (c) of Explanation-II, below provision of section 115JBwas to be called for, relying on the judgement in the case of CIT Vs Echjay Forging (P) Ltd (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bombay). 20.3 The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of assessee with the detailed reasons mentioned in para 16.1.2 of the assessment order. According to the Assessing Officer, since provision was made, it clearly signified that liabilities were unascertained liabilities. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that while computing the busin…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Comverse Networks System India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands partly

ITA 3680/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. DR
Section 92C

…erein in Para (e) it had been mentioned that this provision was based on actuarial valuation of assessee’s liability. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. reported in (2001) 116 Taxmann 322 (Bombay) wherein it has been held that where the assessee had made a provision for doubtful debts, gratuity etc. on the basis of actuarial valuation, such provisions would have to be excluded from net profit for working out the book profit u/s 115J of the Act. 15 C.O. No. 94/D/2016 5.0 The Ld. AR submitted that the C.O. of the assessee was…

Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 3738/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s NHPC Ltd., Tax, Circle-II, NHPC Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACN0149C ITA No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/s NHPC Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income NHPC Complex, 4th Floor, Tax, Circle-II, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACN0149C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Him…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

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

ITA 3650/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Nhpc Ltd., Tax, Circle-Ii, Nhpc Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Ita No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Nhpc Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Nhpc Complex, 4Th Floor, Tax, Circle-Ii, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0149C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 3650/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s NHPC Ltd., Tax, Circle-II, NHPC Complex, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACN0149C ITA No. 3738/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/s NHPC Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income NHPC Complex, 4th Floor, Tax, Circle-II, Finance Div, Sector-33, Faridabad Faridabad-121003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACN0149C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Him…

Aditya Medisales Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 3049/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CITD.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43B

…t wealth tax is not a tax defined under Explanation 2 to Clause (a) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JA of the Act. In parity with the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ASB International (P.) Ltd. 26 taxmann.com 87 (Mum) and CIT vs. Echjay Forgings (P.) Ltd. 251 ITR 15 (Bom.), the AO is directed to exclude the provision for wealth tax for the purposes of computation of book profit. 7.2 In the result, Ground No.5 is accordingly allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3049/Ahd/2014 is partly allowed. ITA No. 3049/Ahd/14 &8 Ors. [Aditya Medisales Ltd.] - 6 - ITA No. 2548/Ahd/2015 (Revenue’s…

DCIT (OSD) Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly

ITA 2935/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 115J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM I.T.A. No. 2935/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT, Circle-2(2), M/s. NhavaSheva International Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 577, Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Darabsha House, Level 1, Mumbai-400 020 N. M. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 PAN/GIR No. AABCN 0185 H (Revenue) (Assessee) : I.T.A. No. 3093/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. NhavaSheva International Dy. CIT, Range (OSD), Mumbai-400 001 Vs. 2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AABCN 0…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. DCIT-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACL0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 DCIT-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5th floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. AAACL0140P Appellant Respondent Asse…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 2183/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Asahi India Glass Limited, Dcit, Circle- 2(1), 38, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Vs. Phase- Iii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sandip Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…tuarial valuation, it cannot be said to be an unascertained liability and added in terms of clause (c) to Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the I.T. Act. 53. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Private Limited reported in 251 ITR 15 has held that since provision for gratuity was made on the basis of actuarial valuation, it was an ascertained liability and the said amount would not be added to the net profits. Similar view has been held by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 82 TTJ 61. The various other decisions relied on…

M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1637/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Asahi India Glass Limited, Dcit, Circle- 2(1), 38, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Vs. Phase- Iii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sandip Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…tuarial valuation, it cannot be said to be an unascertained liability and added in terms of clause (c) to Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the I.T. Act. 53. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Private Limited reported in 251 ITR 15 has held that since provision for gratuity was made on the basis of actuarial valuation, it was an ascertained liability and the said amount would not be added to the net profits. Similar view has been held by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 82 TTJ 61. The various other decisions relied on…

Jet Airways (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistry-ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johari and Ms.Arju Goradia-DR
Section 115JSection 254(1)

…of India. The relevant extracts from the Accounting Standard 15 was also supplied to the learned CIT(A). Reliance was placed on various case laws including decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd., reported in 251 ITR 15 and also on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself i.e. from assessment year 1998-99 to 2005-06. After considering the submission and perusing the material on record, learned CIT(A) found that the 933/M/15(08-09);758/M/15(08-09;759/M/15(10-11);760/M/15(11-12)- issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of as…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3755/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 44CSection 90

…DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 3707/DEL/2014 (A.Y .2005-06) The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFJ Vs DDIT Ltd. Circle-1(1) International (Earlier known as The Bank of Taxation Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd.) New Delhi Jeevan Vihar Building, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi AABCA8439Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) I.T.A .No. 3755/DEL/2014 (A.Y .2005-06) DDIT Vs The Bank of Tokyo- Circle-1(1) International Taxation Mitsubishi, UFJ Ltd. New Delhi Jeevan Vihar Building, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi AABCT3880D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A…