How many judgments cite CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.?

165 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 194H, Section 37(1), Section 40(a)(ia).

CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.

33 ITR 681High Court1958#590 most cited

What is CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. authority for?

An addition to income is revenue neutral if its tax impact remains the same regardless of the year in which it is assessed. Assessments should not dispute the year of addition when the tax rate and impact are consistent, to avoid unnecessary disputes and potential loss to revenue.

165

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. · 33 ITR 681 · revenue neutral · timing difference · pragmatic view · year of addition · impact of tax · loss to revenue · permissible deduction · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 36(1)(vii)Section 194H Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JB Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 211 section 145(2)project completion method section 35d percentage completion method section 21 written down value mercantile system of accounting retracted statement section 35 section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…year or different years, since such issues are revenue neutral and do not affect the tax liability of the assessee likely to be collected by the Revenue as a whole: • CIT vs Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd: 195 Taxman 35 (SC) • CIT vs Nagri Mills Company Ltd: 33 ITR 681 (Born) • Shri Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd: 220 CTR 404 (Del) • CIT vs Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd: 239 CTR 216 (Del) 40. For the reasons stated above, the ld. A.R. submitted that the addition made by the assessing officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. Re: Ground No. 4 to 6 41. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessee…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (3), Hyderabad

ITA 92/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.3.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit (Central) Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Incorporated On 31.1.2014 & Is In The Business Of Real Estate. It Did Not File Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2014- 15. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted On 20.9.2017. In Response To Notice U/S 153A Dated 11.5.2018, No Return Of Income Was Filed. The Ar Of The Assessee Also Refused To Appear When Contacted By The Assessing Officer. Subsequently, The Partner Of The Assessee Firm Shri Gaddam Shyam

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…preme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT (2004)(135 Taxman 586). ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 100 iii) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd (1958) 33 ITR 681. iv) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rohan Projects (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 339. 9. He submitted that the Partners in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) had admitted the source of such cash payment as out of their undisclosed income and the Assessing Officer had brought the same to tax in the hands of the Partners for A.Y 2014-15 w…

M/S Indofil Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-26, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2294/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 192Section 194HSection 194JSection 40

…nd Madhya Bharat vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.1, this Court has observed as under: "We have often wondered why the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes 1 33 ITR 681 rsk 5/6 501-ITXA-2027-17.doc as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different; but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate, and whether the deductio…

Indofile Industries Ltd., Mum vs. The Comm of Income Tax Appeals-26, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2293/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 192Section 194HSection 194JSection 40

M/S Indofil Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-26, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2292/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 192Section 194HSection 194JSection 40

The Godavari Sugar Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3592/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

…and hence, there is no loss to the exchequer by way of offer of income of this amount in the immediately succeeding year. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 33 ITR 681 (Bom) in support of this view. We find force in this argument made by the ld. AR that in as much as the principle of consistency in these peculiar facts and circumstances is disturbed, then it would result in double addition of the very same sum of Rs.2,24,544/-. In order to avoid such a situation, we endorse the consistent approach followed by th…

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)

…sed at uniform rate of tax, the entire exercise of seeking to disturb the year of allowability of expenditure is, in any case, revenue neutral. We are reminded of the classic observation made by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Nagri Mills Co. Ltd, 33 ITR 681 which reads as under: “ We have often wondered why the income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rat…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Saras Spices & Food Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 620/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 478/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAGCS6625L And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 620/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/s. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. Ward-4(1)(1), Vs. Ltd., Ahmedabad. A/3, 4th Floor, Casela Tower…

Shree Saras Spices & Foods P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 478/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

…l VRS pension liability in the captioned AY instead of amortizing payments made during the captioned AY over 5 years would not be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue: - (i). Excel Industries Limited (358 ITR 295) (Supreme Court); (ii). Nagri Mills Ltd (33 ITR 681) (Bombay High Court); and 40 M/s. Novartis India Limited (iii). Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITR No 229/1988) dated 6 May 2008 51. Ld. AR further submitted that incremental liability on account of pension under VRS should be allowed as revenue expenses in view of ITAT order for previous years. Further, the action of disallo…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Solapur vs. M/S. Patil and Co, Solapur

ITA 1426/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshalithe Dcit, Circle - 1 M/S. Patil & Company Aayakar Bhavan 20.12, Pandit Niwas Vs. Hotgi Road, Opp Hotel Kinara South Sadar Bazar Solapur 413003 Solapur 413003 Pan –Aagfp1169H Appellant Respondent Co No.12/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1426/Pun/2019) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Patil & Company The Dcit, Circle - 1 20.12, Pandit Niwas Aayakar Bhavan Vs. South Sadar Bazar Hotgi Road, Opp Hotel Kinara Solapur 413003 Solapur 413003 Pan –Aagfp1169H Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Revenue By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Assessee By: Shri S.N. Puranik Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 1426/Pun/2019 & Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No. 12/Pun/2022 For Ay 2015-16 Arise From The Cit(A)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.07.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir-1/10335/2017- 18, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 46A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The DCIT, Circle - 1 M/s. Patil and Company Aayakar Bhavan 20.12, Pandit Niwas Vs. Hotgi Road, Opp Hotel Kinara South Sadar Bazar Solapur 413003 Solapur 413003 PAN –AAGFP1169H Appellant Respondent CO No.12/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 1426/Pun/2019) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. Patil and Company The DCIT, Circle - 1 20.12, Pandit Niwas Aayakar Bhavan Vs. South Sadar Bazar Hotgi Road, Opp Hotel Kinara Solapur 413003 Solapur 413003 PAN –AAGFP1169H Cross Objector Appellant in…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 99/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…hat though mercantile system of accounting is on accrual basis but there is an agreement, which indicates the point of time when the liability would accrue and arise, the principle of rendering* services would not avail. In CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom.), which reads as under; We have often wondered why the IT authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the IT Act, raise disputes as to the year in I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year:2017-18 9 which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction i…

DCIT- 12 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Guruashish Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2861/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 115JSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…would not affect the profits whether the same are debited during the relevant previous year or the immediately preceding year. Hence, reduction of Work-in-Progress was not warranted. Reliance placed on The Bombay High Court in CIT v Nagri Mills Co Ltd (1958) 33 ITR 681(Bom)(HC). 8. The contentions raised by the Assessee found favour with the CIT(A) who granted relief to the Assessee holding as under: “ 8.5.1 I have considered the rival contentions. The AO has disallowed the entire brokerage expenditure on ground that supporting documents were not filed [paragraph 13.5(b) of the assessment order]. I find from t…

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

ITA 1768/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Sh. Sandip Raj, CIT-DR

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile known as M/s Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 PAN: AAACS7947P ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent by : Sh. Sandip Raj, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 29/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 21/06/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This app…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…hat though mercantile system of accounting is on accrual basis but there is an agreement, which indicates the point of time when the liability would accrue and arise, the principle of rendering* services would not avail. In CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom.), which reads as under; I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 25 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 We have often wondered why the IT authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the IT Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be al…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…hat though mercantile system of accounting is on accrual basis but there is an agreement, which indicates the point of time when the liability would accrue and arise, the principle of rendering* services would not avail. In CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom.), which reads as under; I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 25 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 We have often wondered why the IT authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the IT Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be al…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…hat though mercantile system of accounting is on accrual basis but there is an agreement, which indicates the point of time when the liability would accrue and arise, the principle of rendering* services would not avail. In CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom.), which reads as under; I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 25 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 We have often wondered why the IT authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the IT Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be al…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…hat though mercantile system of accounting is on accrual basis but there is an agreement, which indicates the point of time when the liability would accrue and arise, the principle of rendering* services would not avail. In CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom.), which reads as under; I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 25 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 We have often wondered why the IT authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the IT Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be al…

Jt.CIT.(OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 956/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R

Section 133Section 14ASection 43D

…oncept of accrual is considered and guarantee commission is held to have accrued when the guarantee is issued. 7.3 8 As regards the contention that change in method is merely a timing difference and reliance on the decisions in the case of Nagri Mills Limited 33 ITR 681 and Excel Industries Limited relied upon by the appellant, the decision of the Nagri Mills was pertaining to deduction of bonus and year of allowabi/ity. In the case of Excel Industries Limited again, the Supreme Court was concerned with question of value of benefit in respect of benefit of duty on advance license pass book and issue was whether t…