CIT v. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd.

352 ITR 602High Court2013#7441 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also reported as

44 Taxmann.com 342

Judgments citing CIT v. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. THE ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 319/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. The Orissa State Co The Orissa State Co-Op.Milk Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Producers Federation Ltd., Producers Federation Ltd., D-2, 2, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 3220 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 31.5.2017 In Appeal No In Appeal No.0251/2015-16 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 43B

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. iv.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed. Considering the above facts, it is…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 130/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 288/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 175/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…concerned, no portion of the liability could be allowed as the liability was merely of the nature of a contingent liability till the end of the relevant accounting period. vi.) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) on similar facts confirmed the disallowance of a provision made in respect of service charges. It was held that it was not made on scientific basis. It was an ad-hoc provision and major amount remained unpaid after 2 years from the end of relevant previous year. Hence it was held that same could not be allowed.” ITA No.114/CTK/2014: Asst.Year: 2…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. POLYHOSE INDIA (RUBBER) PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 17/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…lowed in the current year only when the liability towards warranty expense is properly ascertained on historic basis. This aspect is also made clear in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd reported in 352 ITR 602. Further the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd reported in 354 ITR 127 has also made it clear that provision for warranty will be allowable as deduction only if it is computed on scientific method. Further in the case CIT vs. Sony India Pvt. Ltd reported in 160 taxman 397, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…

POLYHOSE INDIA RUBBER PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3389/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…lowed in the current year only when the liability towards warranty expense is properly ascertained on historic basis. This aspect is also made clear in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd reported in 352 ITR 602. Further the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd reported in 354 ITR 127 has also made it clear that provision for warranty will be allowable as deduction only if it is computed on scientific method. Further in the case CIT vs. Sony India Pvt. Ltd reported in 160 taxman 397, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…

POLYHOSE INDIA RUBBER PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3388/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…lowed in the current year only when the liability towards warranty expense is properly ascertained on historic basis. This aspect is also made clear in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd reported in 352 ITR 602. Further the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd reported in 354 ITR 127 has also made it clear that provision for warranty will be allowable as deduction only if it is computed on scientific method. Further in the case CIT vs. Sony India Pvt. Ltd reported in 160 taxman 397, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…

POLYHOSE INDIA RUBBER PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3387/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…lowed in the current year only when the liability towards warranty expense is properly ascertained on historic basis. This aspect is also made clear in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd reported in 352 ITR 602. Further the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd reported in 354 ITR 127 has also made it clear that provision for warranty will be allowable as deduction only if it is computed on scientific method. Further in the case CIT vs. Sony India Pvt. Ltd reported in 160 taxman 397, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…

DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. ZINSER TEXTILES SYSTEMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4851/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rushabh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ion that the estimated provision for warranty cost is allowable. The very same decision was considered by the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. Cf. C. (A.) Nos. 148 to 155 of 2005, dated July 9, 2012) since reported in [2013] 352 ITR 602 (Mad) wherein it was observed at paragraphs 14 and 16 as follows (pages 607 and 608): “We reject the claim of the assessee on both counts. As far as the reliance placed on the decision reported in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 1TR 62 (SC) is concerned, in considering the claim on a provision made for warranty claim, the apex cou…

CIT v. Forbes Campbell Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 602) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax