CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd.

293 ITR 311High Court2007#3472 most cited

What is CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. authority for?

A provision for warranties is not deductible if the liability has not crystallized and is uncertain, as it does not represent a present obligation arising from past events.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. · section 37 · provision for warranties · contingent liability · deductible expense · uncertain liability · accrual basis · Madras High Court

Issues it is cited on

section 10asection 40(a)(i)section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)disallowance u/s 14asection 43brevenue expendituresection 14asection 10section 40section 14india

Judgments citing CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…s and not leaving any note in the audit report. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in ITO vs. EMCO Transformers Ltd. (ITAT, Bom) 32 1TD 260, Srinivasa Computers Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Chennai) 107 1TD 357, and CIT vs. Rotork Controls India Ltd. (Mad) 293 ITR 311. According to him, later on the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down General Principle on this issue, wherein it was stated that the value of contingent liability, like warranty expense, if properly ascertained and discounted on accrual basis can be an item of deduction under section 37, the principle of estimation is not the normal rule it would…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU 1 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1012/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 944/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 943/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 942/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 941/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 940/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 939/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 938/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

DCIT LTPU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1089/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…or warranties, nonetheless, certain principles enunciated therein are quite apt for the case on hand as well. In the said case, the assessee had made provision for warranties. The Madras High Court in their judgment in CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 311 denied deduction of the provision for warranties on the ground that the liability was not certain. In fact at page 315 the High Court expressed this view by stating that considering the nature of the liability, which is yet to crystallise but loaded ,with uncertainty of the event, to cause a liability, there is no justification to accept the plea…

JCIT, BENGALURU vs. M/S ABB LTD.,, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1837/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Dilip, Advocate and Standing Counsel
Section 14A

…t amount cannot be quantified, however, the same is based on scientific approach and based on past experience. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned DR relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. & Others (293 ITR 311). In the aforesaid decision, as there was no evidence of actual expenditure in prior years, the provision was concluded as not deductible. Facts are different in the present case. The learned CIT(A) has considered the details meticulously and then granted relief to the assessee. After going through the facts of the case, we do not find any infirm…

ABB INDIA LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1808/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Dilip, Advocate and Standing Counsel
Section 14A

…t amount cannot be quantified, however, the same is based on scientific approach and based on past experience. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned DR relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. & Others (293 ITR 311). In the aforesaid decision, as there was no evidence of actual expenditure in prior years, the provision was concluded as not deductible. Facts are different in the present case. The learned CIT(A) has considered the details meticulously and then granted relief to the assessee. After going through the facts of the case, we do not find any infirm…

ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S ABB LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 335/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Abb Ltd., 49, Khanija Bhavan, The Addl. Race Course Road, Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, East Wing, Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaca3834B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2007-08 (By Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14A

…30.9.2021 and A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07(supra) decided this issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- “3. At the time of heating, learned AR relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Rotork controls India Ltd. & others 293 ITR 311. In the aforesaid decision, as there was no evidence of actual expenditure In prior years, the provision was concluded as not deductible. Facts are different In the present case. The learned CIT(A) has considered the details meticulously and then granted relief to the assessee After going through the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmit…

ABB LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 317/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Abb Ltd., 49, Khanija Bhavan, The Addl. Race Course Road, Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, East Wing, Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaca3834B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2007-08 (By Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14A

…30.9.2021 and A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07(supra) decided this issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- “3. At the time of heating, learned AR relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Rotork controls India Ltd. & others 293 ITR 311. In the aforesaid decision, as there was no evidence of actual expenditure In prior years, the provision was concluded as not deductible. Facts are different In the present case. The learned CIT(A) has considered the details meticulously and then granted relief to the assessee After going through the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmit…

ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 1129/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Reddy, Sr. Counsel

…ITA No.894/Bang/2007 by order dated 30.9.2021 decided this issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- “3. At the time of heating, learned AR relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Rotork controls India Ltd. & others 293 ITR 311. In the aforesaid decision, as there was no evidence of actual expenditure In prior years, the provision was concluded as not deductible. Facts are different In the present case. The learned CIT(A) has considered the details meticulously and then granted relief to the assessee After going through the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmit…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…rs and not leaving any note in the audit report. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in ITO vs. EMCO Transformers Ltd. (ITAT, Bom) 32 1TD 260, Srinivasa Computers Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Chennai) 107 1TD 357, and CIT vs. Rotork Controls India Ltd. (Mad) 293 ITR 311. According to him, later on the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down General Principle on this issue, wherein it was stated that the value of contingent liability, like warranty expense, if properly ascertained and discounted on accrual basis can be an item of deduction under section 37, the principle of estimation is not the normal rule it would…

MAHARASHTRA POWER TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 595/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 595/Mum/2012 Assessment Year : 2008 – 09 2013/Mum/2015 Assessment Year : 2010 –11 M/S. Maharashtra Power Acit – 10(3), Transmission Structures Pvt. Mumbai Vs. Ltd., 190, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Aadcm3245M (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ade depending on uncertain future events are contingent liability and hence not allowable as deduction :- (i) ITO Vs. EMCO Transformers Ltd. (321 ITO 260} (Bom). (ii) Srinivas Computers Ltd. Vs. ACITM07 1TD 357) (Chennai). (iii) CIT Vs. Rotork Controls India (293 ITR 311) (Madras). (iv) Indian Molasses Co. Vs. CIT (37 ITR 66) (SC). In view of these facts and legal position, I am convinced that the observation of the A.O. that the liability was unascertained has force and consequently, the disallowance on account of provision amounting to Rs.2,31,66,730/- made by the A.O. is upheld.” 11. Learned AR vehemently sub…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…rs and not leaving any note in the audit report. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in ITO vs. EMCO Transformers Ltd. (ITAT, Bom) 32 1TD 260, Srinivasa Computers Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Chennai) 107 1TD 357, and CIT vs. Rotork Controls India Ltd. (Mad) 293 ITR 311. According to him, later on the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down General Principle on this issue, wherein it was stated that the value of contingent liability, like warranty expense, if properly ascertained and discounted on accrual basis can be an item of deduction under section 37, the principle of estimation is not the normal rule it would…

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/ SDELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1026/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147

…P)A Nos. 85 & 1026/B/14, 1838/B/13 & CO No.21/B/16 Page 9 of 36 written back in the next year does not alter the position in this year. The AO relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rotork Controls India Ltd and Others 293 ITR 311 Mad wherein it was held that if the provision for warranty is made on an ad hoc basis, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction. According to the AO, the provision made by the assessee cannot be said to be on a scientific basis and as such, cannot be allowed as a deduction. 16. On the argument of the Assessee that the liability of the Assess…

JCIT vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA,

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1838/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147

…P)A Nos. 85 & 1026/B/14, 1838/B/13 & CO No.21/B/16 Page 9 of 36 written back in the next year does not alter the position in this year. The AO relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rotork Controls India Ltd and Others 293 ITR 311 Mad wherein it was held that if the provision for warranty is made on an ad hoc basis, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction. According to the AO, the provision made by the assessee cannot be said to be on a scientific basis and as such, cannot be allowed as a deduction. 16. On the argument of the Assessee that the liability of the Assess…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Rotork Controls India Ltd. (293 ITR 311) — Cited in 34 Judgments | BharatTax