CIT v. Ericssion Communications P. Ltd.

318 ITR 340High Court2009#6773 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Ericssion Communications P. Ltd.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 845/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 399/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Consolidated Construction The ACIT, Consortium Ltd., vs. Corporate Range - 1, No.3, 2nd Link Street, Chennai. CIT Colony, Mylapore Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACC 4214B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 845 & 2799/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011…

M/S CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 399/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 399/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Consolidated Construction The ACIT, Consortium Ltd., vs. Corporate Range - 1, No.3, 2nd Link Street, Chennai. CIT Colony, Mylapore Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACC 4214B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 845 & 2799/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011…

CORP CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI vs. CCCL-EDAC ENERGY LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3223/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3223/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 The Dcit, Cccl-Edac Energy Ltd., Corporate Circle 1(2), Vs. 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaecc 0167F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Chennai In Ita No.264/Cit(A)-1/2014-15 Dated 24.08.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By Ao On Retention Money Held By Contractee. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Two Effective Grounds:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case That Retention Money Held By Contractees Of The Assessee Having Been Excluded From The Computation Of Total Income, The Claim Of Expenditure Retention Money Payable To Its Sub-Contractors Can Only Be Allowable On Payment & Not On Accrual.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Tarun, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…ssee is not capable of being estimated with the reasonable certainty though actual quantification was not possible and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ericssion Communications P. Ltd, 318 ITR 340, held that provision for warranty claims on scientific basis which is consistently applied by the assessee for its business was allowable as deduction. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Luk India Pvt. Ltd, 239 CTR 440, held that provision for warranty claimed by applying the settled principles of having regard to the fact that claim was…

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

…td. v CIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 166 (Karnataka High Court);  Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v CIT [2015] 55 taxmann.com 377 (Karnataka High Court);  Denso Kirloskar [2013] 34 taxmann.com 238 (Karnataka High Court);  Ericsson Communications Pvt. Ltd v CIT [2009] 318 ITR 340 (Delhi High Court). Further, in Assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11, the DRP directed the AO to delete the disallowance in respect of provision for warranty. 105. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in disallowing an amount of Rs. 3,21,32,433 without appreciating that “net” warranty expense…

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 713/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92C

…rnataka High Court); IT(TP)A No. 713/Bang/2017 Page 54 of 79 • Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v CIT[2015] 55 taxmann.com 377 (Karnataka High Court); • Denso Kirloskar[2013] 34 taxmann.com 238 (Karnataka High Court); • Ericsson Communications Pvt. Ltd v CIT[2009] 318 ITR 340 (Delhi High Court). 103. Based on the above discussion, the ld. AR submitted that the expenses incurred by it towards warranty expense are allowable under section 37 of the Act. In assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11, the DRP directed the AO to delete the disallowance in respect of provision for warranty. Also, it is submitted that…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KENERSYS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2200/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle- 14, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. Kenersys India Pvt. Ltd., S.No.49, Industry House, Mundhwa, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadck2089H Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Mesran Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : .21.01.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 30.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “A. Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Allowing That The Disallowance Of Provision For Warranty Of Rs.75,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer? B. For These & Such Other Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of The Hearing, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. C. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Or All The Grounds Of Appeal.” 3. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply, Erection, Installation, Operations & Maintenance Of Wind Turbine Generators (Wtg) & Other Associated

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Mesran

…e assessee in the appeal. The CIT(A) also discussed the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 judgment in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., (supra), Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Ericssion Communications P. Ltd., 318 ITR 340 (Delhi), Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Hinditron Services Pvt. Ltd., 321 ITR 263 (Bombay) and the ITAT, Pune Bench decision in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 167 TTJ 0102 (Pune), and held that the assessee calculated the warranty provision on the basis of considering the actual expenditure. The CI…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S EAST COAST CONSTRUCTIONS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1442/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1442/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. East Coast Constructions & Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Vs. Industries Ltd., No. 4, Moores Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaace1662P] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Tripurasundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.25,24,97,133/- Towards Expenses Relatable To The Retention Money Withheld By The Contractees.

For Appellant: Ms. Tripurasundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssee is not capable of being estimated with the reasonable certainty though actual quantification was not possible and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ericssion Communications P. Ltd, 318 ITR 340, held that provision for warranty claims on scientific basis which is consistently applied by the assessee for its business was allowable as deduction. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Luk India Pvt. Ltd, 239 CTR 440, held that provision for warranty claimed by applying the settled principles of having regard to the fact that claim was…

TATA MOTORS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, for

ITA 1490/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 54E

…n assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 in ITA No.630/Mum/2012 and after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs CIT 383 ITR 529 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd vs CIT 318 ITR 340 (Bom) held that when own funds in the form of share capital and reserves is in excess of amount invested in shares and securities which yielded exempt income, then no disallowance can be made towards interest expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:- “16. We have considered the rival submission of the…

M/S ENEXIO POWER COOLING SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S GEA COOLING TOWER TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CORP RANGE 2, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 509/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 509/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT

…not capable of being estimated with the reasonable certainty though actual quantification was not possible and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ericsson Communications P. Ltd, 318 ITR 340, held that provision for warranty claims on scientific basis which is consistently applied by the assessee for its business was allowable as deduction. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Luk India Pvt. Ltd., 239 CTR 440, held that provision for warranty claimed by applying the settled principles of having regard to the fact that…

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 521/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…d and was not in the nature of Contingent Liability. 1.3 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in not following the below mentioned decisions: i) Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC) ii) CIT V Ericssion Communications P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 340 (Delhi) The learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in disallowing the claim of 2.1 bad debts of Rs.71,38,611/- which were written off and debited to Profit & Loss account of the year under assessment. The learned AO /DRP erred in not allowing the above claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 The learned Assess…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 665/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…d and was not in the nature of Contingent Liability. 1.3 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in not following the below mentioned decisions: i) Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC) ii) CIT V Ericssion Communications P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 340 (Delhi) The learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in disallowing the claim of 2.1 bad debts of Rs.71,38,611/- which were written off and debited to Profit & Loss account of the year under assessment. The learned AO /DRP erred in not allowing the above claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 The learned Assess…

TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 635/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…d and was not in the nature of Contingent Liability. 1.3 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in not following the below mentioned decisions: i) Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC) ii) CIT V Ericssion Communications P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 340 (Delhi) The learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in disallowing the claim of 2.1 bad debts of Rs.71,38,611/- which were written off and debited to Profit & Loss account of the year under assessment. The learned AO /DRP erred in not allowing the above claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 The learned Assess…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. EAST COAST CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1433/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण ,’सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"यएवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1431, 1432 & 1433/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. East Coast Constructions & Tax, Vs. Industries Limited, Corporate Circle -2(1), No. 4, Buharia Buildings, Chennai – 600 034. Moores Road, Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: AAACE 1662P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. EAST COAST CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1432/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण ,’सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"यएवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1431, 1432 & 1433/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. East Coast Constructions & Tax, Vs. Industries Limited, Corporate Circle -2(1), No. 4, Buharia Buildings, Chennai – 600 034. Moores Road, Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: AAACE 1662P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. EAST COAST CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1431/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण ,’सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"यएवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1431, 1432 & 1433/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. East Coast Constructions & Tax, Vs. Industries Limited, Corporate Circle -2(1), No. 4, Buharia Buildings, Chennai – 600 034. Moores Road, Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: AAACE 1662P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T…

EAST COAST CONSTRUCTIONS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 864/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण ,’सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"यएवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1431, 1432 & 1433/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. East Coast Constructions & Tax, Vs. Industries Limited, Corporate Circle -2(1), No. 4, Buharia Buildings, Chennai – 600 034. Moores Road, Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: AAACE 1662P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T…

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.582/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Lenovo (India) P. Ltd, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenaundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru 560 037 .. Appellant Pan : Aabci3372H V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -4(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. Chandrashekar, Cit Heard On : 19.05.2016 Pronounced On : 30.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Chandrashekar, CIT
Section 92C

…c estimate could be made considering the past data for availing of the deduction. As per the Ld. AR, this is what assessee had done. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ericssion Communications P. Ltd [(2009) 318 ITR 340]. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales-tax v. M/s. H. M. Esufall [(1973) AIR 2266] Ld AR submitted that an estimate could IT(TP)A.582/Bang/2015 Page - 14 be an over estimate or under estimate and there would always be an element of guess work while making an estimate. This, as per the Ld. AR, was no…