CIT v. Micro Land Ltd.

347 ITR 613High Court2012#10811 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Micro Land 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)

…d energy only to determine the year of taxability of the amount." 12.2 Further, in our opinion, the provision for accrued liability which has to be discharged at a future date by the assessee is an allowable expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Micro Land Ltd, 347 ITR 613[Karnataka High Court], the assessee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee f…

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)

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)

…d energy only to determine the year of taxability of the amount." 12.2 Further, in our opinion, the provision for accrued liability which has to be discharged at a future date by the assessee is an allowable expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Micro Land Ltd, 347 ITR 613 [Karnataka High Court], the assessee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CEC SOMA CICI JOINT VENTURE, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2501/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)

…iabilities were not deductible as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Molasses Company Ltd vs CIT, reported in (1959) 37 ITR 66. He also placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Microland Ltd reported in (2012) 347 ITR 613. Ld.AO thus was of opinion that, provision in question is yet to be crystallised and was loaded with uncertainty of event to cause a liability, and hence the same was not allowable. He placed reliance on decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., Page 4 of 8 6. Ld.AO thus disallowed deduction of Rs.7,85,…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर 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…

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

…nd energy only to determine the year of taxability of the amount.” 11. Further, in our opinion, the provision for accrued liability which has to be discharged at a future date by the assessee is an allowable expenditure. In the case of CIT v. Micro Land Ltd., 347 ITR 613[Karnataka High Court], the assessee claimed deduction under section 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt., Ltd. v. CIT 314 ITR 62, held that the provision mad…

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

…d energy only to determine the year of taxability of the amount." 12.2 Further, in our opinion, the provision for accrued liability which has to be discharged at a future date by the assessee is an allowable expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Micro Land Ltd, 347 ITR 613[Karnataka :-11-: ITA No. 1431, 1432, 1433/Chny/2016 & 864/Chny/2015 High Court], the assessee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT…

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

…d energy only to determine the year of taxability of the amount." 12.2 Further, in our opinion, the provision for accrued liability which has to be discharged at a future date by the assessee is an allowable expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Micro Land Ltd, 347 ITR 613[Karnataka :-11-: ITA No. 1431, 1432, 1433/Chny/2016 & 864/Chny/2015 High Court], the assessee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT…

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

…d energy only to determine the year of taxability of the amount." 12.2 Further, in our opinion, the provision for accrued liability which has to be discharged at a future date by the assessee is an allowable expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Micro Land Ltd, 347 ITR 613[Karnataka :-11-: ITA No. 1431, 1432, 1433/Chny/2016 & 864/Chny/2015 High Court], the assessee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT…

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

…d energy only to determine the year of taxability of the amount." 12.2 Further, in our opinion, the provision for accrued liability which has to be discharged at a future date by the assessee is an allowable expenditure. In the case of CIT vs Micro Land Ltd, 347 ITR 613[Karnataka :-11-: ITA No. 1431, 1432, 1433/Chny/2016 & 864/Chny/2015 High Court], the assessee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT…