CIT v. R. B. Sharma & Co.

137 ITR 333High Court1982#16685 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. R. B. Sharma & Co.

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bridege & Roof Co.(India)Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal for AY

ITA 259/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 43B

…2010- 11 i.e. AY 2011-12. Similarly, Rs.36.70 lacs has been offered for taxation in FY 2012-13 Bridge & Roof Co. (India). Ltd., AYs- 2010-11 & 2011-12 i.e. AY 2013-14. We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. R. B. Sharma & Co. (1982) 137 ITR 333 (Bom) has held that the delay in completion of contract is incidental to the business and liability of compensation arisen because of delay is an allowable deduction under the Act. In the case in hand, admittedly, the assessee company claimed liquidated damages deducted by the Railway Department and other Government Undertakings/Private Enterpris…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal for AY

ITA 258/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 43B

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Sportina Payce Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1630/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 40

…a) CIT Vs. S.A builders (p) Ltd (2008)(299 ITR 88)(P & H). In this case the security deposit forfeited by way of compensation for not completing the contract was held to be allowable as deduction as normal commercial loss. (b) CIT vs. R.D.Sharma & Co. (1982)(137 ITR 333)(Bom). In this case, the compensation paid for delay in completion of building contract is held to be deductible. 4 M/s. Sportina Payce Infrastructure P. Ltd. 7. We heard the parties on this issue. There is no dispute that the bank guarantee was given by the assessee to DDA in connection with execution of contract works. There is also no disput…

JCIT (OSD) 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aptech Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3369/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3369/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dy. Cit-9(1)(2), M/S. Aptech Limited बनाम/ Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, A-65, Aptech House, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadca 0602 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rutuja Pawar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 29.04.2014 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2007- 08. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I) “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit- (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty On The Issue Of Provision For Rebate Claimed Without Appreciating The Fact That The Same Was A Mere Provision & Was 2 Dy. Cit Vs. M/S. Aptech Limited Patently Not Allowable Which Amounts To Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars In The Return Of Income, Thus Liable For Penalty?" Ii) “'Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit- (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty On The Issue Of Provision For Leave Encashment Without Appreciating The Fact That The Same Was Not Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income As Mandated By Clause (F) Of Section 43B Of The It, Act, Thereby Making A Claim Which Is Patently Inaccurate, Hence Liable For Penalty?" '

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rutuja Pawar

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(2)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “डी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3369/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dy. CIT-9(1)(2), M/s. Aptech Limited बनाम/ Room No. 260A, 2nd Floor, A-65, Aptech House, MIDC, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AADCA 0602 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rutuja Pawar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.01…

DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Electroteknica Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (Ground No

ITA 1114/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1114/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S Electroteknica Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. 1/5B, Raja Basanta Roy Road, Kolkata-700026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace5368C (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby :Shri Kalyan Nath,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Kolkata, In Appeal No.871/Cit(A)-1/C-1/2014-15, Dated 07.05.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 23.12.2010. 2.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Liquidation Damages Of Rs.1,30,52,009/- As Liability Of Compensation Arising Out Of Delay. 2.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution To Pf/Esi As An Allowable Expense.

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath,ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1114/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/s Electroteknica DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. 1/5B, Raja Basanta Roy Road, Kolkata-700026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACE5368C (ASSESSEE) .. (RESPONDENT) Assesseeby :Shri Kalyan Nath,ACIT DR Respondent by :Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the R…