CIT v. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.

307 ITR 150High Court2008#5119 most cited

What is CIT v. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. authority for?

Prior period expenses and items debited below the line to the profit and loss account are part of the company's profit and loss account and must be considered for MAT computation under section 115JB. Provisions for ascertained liabilities like gratuity, if calculated actuarially, are also to be considered.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. · 307 ITR 150 · section 115JB · MAT computation · prior period expenses · profit and loss account · ascertained liability · provision for gratuity

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 115jsection 115jbsection 115section 11company

Judgments citing CIT v. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.

Sensient India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4796/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar: (A.Y : 2010-11) M/S. Sensient India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito-8(3)(1), Mumbai 103/104, Antariksh (Thakur House) (Respondent) Marol, Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059. Pan : Aafcs5952D (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37

…s not a case where “lease premium” is paid for a long term lease as in the case of Kribco (supra). It is a deposit in the usual course of taking show rooms on lease. 19. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 326 ITR 114 has held as follows. “We agree with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the assessee had wrongly claimed it as a bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the said Act. However, we find that the Tribunal has examined the matter in the correct light and allowed the same as an expenditure u/s 37(1) of the said Act. A plea was raised by the Ld. Counsel…

DCIT vs. M/S Golden Gate Properties Ltd

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

ITA 1708/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Golden Gate Properties Ltd. No.820, Golden House, 80 Feet Road, 8Th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095. … Respondent Pan: Aaacg 5284 H

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211Section 211(2)Section 211(6)Section 80

…ible to adjust the prior period expenses while computing the book profit u/s 115JB by relying oil decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd. vs JCIT(Special Range)(2012)349 ITR 58(Madras) and CIT vs Khaitan Chemicals and fertilizers Ltd [2008] 307 ITR 150(Delhi) without appreciating the fact that not only the prior period expenses is not an item which is specified in Cl ause (i) to (viii) of Explanation 1 to Section I15JB(I) but also that the amount of prior period expenses of Rs.14,37,10,403 had not been debited to the P&L account and the SC in the case of Apollo Tyres vs CIT 255 ITR 253 had held…

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax

ITTA/390/2010HC Telangana25 Feb 2015

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE