What is CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. authority for?

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.?

204 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 41(1), Section 36(1)(va), Section 37(1), Section 41(2), Section 43B, Section 2(24).

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275)

Excel Crop Care Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

ITA 395/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 145ASection 14ASection 80

…ed that in addition of ₹ 33,398,840 is resulted into double taxation in case of the appellant because the tax impact of the same has already been taxed in assessment year 2008 – 09. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 261 ITR 275. 033. The learned CIT – A, the explanation of the assessee and thereafter held bad as per the computation of total income they assessee itself is stated that if it had followed the practice of earlier years of working out the net effect on the profit and loss account, the net effect on the profit for the year would have been a net increase of a s…

DCIT Cen Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Excel Crop Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

ITA 6665/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 145ASection 14ASection 80

…ed that in addition of ₹ 33,398,840 is resulted into double taxation in case of the appellant because the tax impact of the same has already been taxed in assessment year 2008 – 09. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 261 ITR 275. 033. The learned CIT – A, the explanation of the assessee and thereafter held bad as per the computation of total income they assessee itself is stated that if it had followed the practice of earlier years of working out the net effect on the profit and loss account, the net effect on the profit for the year would have been a net increase of a s…

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. Excel Crop Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

ITA 4762/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 145ASection 14ASection 80

…ed that in addition of ₹ 33,398,840 is resulted into double taxation in case of the appellant because the tax impact of the same has already been taxed in assessment year 2008 – 09. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 261 ITR 275. 033. The learned CIT – A, the explanation of the assessee and thereafter held bad as per the computation of total income they assessee itself is stated that if it had followed the practice of earlier years of working out the net effect on the profit and loss account, the net effect on the profit for the year would have been a net increase of a s…

Excel Crop Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

ITA 3906/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 145ASection 14ASection 80

…ed that in addition of ₹ 33,398,840 is resulted into double taxation in case of the appellant because the tax impact of the same has already been taxed in assessment year 2008 – 09. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 261 ITR 275. 033. The learned CIT – A, the explanation of the assessee and thereafter held bad as per the computation of total income they assessee itself is stated that if it had followed the practice of earlier years of working out the net effect on the profit and loss account, the net effect on the profit for the year would have been a net increase of a s…

ACIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. Excel Crop Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

ITA 7140/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 145ASection 14ASection 80

…ed that in addition of ₹ 33,398,840 is resulted into double taxation in case of the appellant because the tax impact of the same has already been taxed in assessment year 2008 – 09. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 261 ITR 275. 033. The learned CIT – A, the explanation of the assessee and thereafter held bad as per the computation of total income they assessee itself is stated that if it had followed the practice of earlier years of working out the net effect on the profit and loss account, the net effect on the profit for the year would have been a net increase of a s…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol-III vs. M/S. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/96/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

…credit applied by the appellant was in accordance with the approved method of accounting duly approved by the ICAI and has been regularly followed by the appellant and also has been accepted by the revenue and without even considering the decision reported in 261 ITR 275 (SC) and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd.?” The appeal being ITA 96 of 2007 was admitted on 8th March, 2007 on the following substantial question of law :- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in law regarding reduction of disallowance un…

Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/173/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

…credit applied by the appellant was in accordance with the approved method of accounting duly approved by the ICAI and has been regularly followed by the appellant and also has been accepted by the revenue and without even considering the decision reported in 261 ITR 275 (SC) and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd.?” The appeal being ITA 96 of 2007 was admitted on 8th March, 2007 on the following substantial question of law :- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in law regarding reduction of disallowance un…

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…stified and addition should be deleted. 33. Method regularly followed cannot be disturbed. AO is bound to accept the method of accounting preferred by the assessee and he cannot impose another method on the assessee CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemical vs. UOI (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) (277) United Commercial Bank v/s. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355( SC) 34. Resjudicata Not applicable to income tax assessment. But there must be substantial ground for one ITO to differ from the view taken by another. (1991) 192 ITR 619 (Cal.) CIT vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. 35. Strictly speaking, resjudicata does not apply to income tax proceedings.…