CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd.

179 ITR 8High Court1989#3257 most cited

What is CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. authority for?

Retention money does not accrue to an assessee until the defect liability period is over and it is certified that no liability is attached to the assessee, at which point the assessee acquires the right to receive such money.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles India P. Ltd · retention money · income · accrual · contract · defect liability period · right to receive · section 145

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145ASection 250Section 43CB

Issues it is cited on

retention moneypercentage completion methodsection 43cright to receivesection 145aicdssection 80isection 145section 43liable to taxsection 143(2)section 80

Judgments citing CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd.

ARYACON CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD,PERUMBAVOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, ALUVA

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

ITA 853/COCH/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…on “proportionate computation” method. This is reiterated in answer to Question No. 11 in Circular No. 10 of 2017. 70. The above justification is contrary to the law explained in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles India (P) Ltd (1988) 179 ITR 8 (ii) CIT v. P & C Constructions (P) Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 113 (iii) Amarshiv Construction (P) Ltd v. DCIT (2014) 367 ITR 659 and (iv) DIT v. Ballast Nedam International (2013) 355 ITR 300 which followed the decision in Anup Engineering Limited v. CIT (2000) 247 ITR 114. 71. All the above decisions hold that the retention money does not accrue to an A…

TPL- SUCG CONSORTIUM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 753/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

…h circumstances we are of the view that the retention money cannot be regarded as income of the assessee. The issue is no longer res integra and has been concluded by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete (Piles) India Pvt. Ltd. [179 ITR 8]. In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble’ble Calcutta High Court on identical facts held that having regard to the terms and conditions of the contract, it could not be held that either 10 per cent. Or 5 per cent., as the case may be, being retention money, became legally due to the assessee on the completion of the work. Only after the assessee ful…

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 5550/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

…he decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 596 (Bom) which had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal) wherein it was held that the right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the same would not amount to an income of the assessee in the year in which the amount is retained. On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (…

BLUE STAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 4792/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

…he decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 596 (Bom) which had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal) wherein it was held that the right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the same would not amount to an income of the assessee in the year in which the amount is retained. On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (…

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

ITA 15/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…om). Mr. Sathe appearing for the respondent has, however, drawn our attention to two judgements, viz., of the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court. The Calcutta High court judgement is reported in CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 8. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in that matter has held that the payment of retention money in the case of contract is deferred and is contingent on satisfactory completion of contract work. The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amoun…

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PVT LTD ,BELLARY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , HOSPET

ITA 1540/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…om). Mr. Sathe appearing for the respondent has, however, drawn our attention to two judgements, viz., of the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court. The Calcutta High court judgement is reported in CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 8. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in that matter has held that the payment of retention money in the case of contract is deferred and is contingent on satisfactory completion of contract work. The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amoun…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, , KOLKLATA vs. M/S. TANTIA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

ITA/184/2018HC Calcutta27 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Avra Majumdar, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd November, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.1405/Kol/2015 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 11Th December, 2018 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: “(A) Whether The Facts Of This Case Are Identical To Those In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. Reported In [1989]

Section 14Section 260ASection 7

…2012-13. The appeal was admitted on 11th December, 2018 on the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether the facts of this case are identical to those in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1989] 2 179 ITR 8 decided on 5th December, 1988 and this Court should follow the same in this case also? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the retention amount could be taken to be the income of the assessee in the subject previous year? (c) Did the tribunal come to the correct legal conclusion by following the correct accounting principle…

BSR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

…om). Mr. Sathe appearing for the respondent has, however, drawn our attention to two judgements, viz., of the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court. The Calcutta High court judgement is reported in CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 8. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in that matter has held that the payment of retention money in the case of contract is deferred and is contingent on satisfactory completion of contract work. The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amoun…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. EMC LTD

ITAT/26/2022HC Calcutta25 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 194CSection 260A

…shall be retained and paid after successful commissioning of the transmission line and issuance of taking over certificate. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Simplex Concrete (Piles) India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 179 ITR 8 (Cal). On facts, the assessee pointed out that part of the said retention money was taken as income for the assessment year 2015- 16 to 2017-18 when a particular project was completed and have been duly included in the return of income for the said assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18. Further, the assessee stated that the remaining amount of rete…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S M C NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED

ITAT/44/2021HC Calcutta24 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 the tribunal had decided the issue in their favour. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simplex 5 Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal.) The contentions advanced by the assessee were considered by the CIT(A) and the sample contract which was produced by the assessee was examined. The law as laid down in Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. was noted and the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. While doing so, the CIT(A) took into consideration of the order passed by the…

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2149/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…h circumstances, we are of the view that the retention money cannot be regarded as income of the assessee. The issue is no longer res Integra and has been concluded by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete (piles) India Pvt Ltd. [179 ITR 8]. In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on identical facts held that having regard to the terms and conditions of the contract, it could not be held that either 10 per cent or 5 per cent., as the case may be, being retention money, became legally due to the assessee on the completion of the work. Only after the assessee fulfille…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1173/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 Acit, Circle-1(1), P- M/S Mcnally Sayajt बनाम 7,Chowringhee Square, Engineering Ltd., 4, / R.No.20, 7Thfloor, V/S. Mangoe Lane, Kolkat-A7A00 069 Kolkata-700 001 [Pan No.Aaccs 5491 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Aplesh Gupta, Aca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-01-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata Dated 13.03.2018, Passed In Case No.10199/Cit(A)-1/Circle-1(1)/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Former Substantive Ground Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Employees Contribution To Provident Fund Disallowance Of ₹20,38,637/- Despite The Fact That The Same Had Been Deposited After The Due Date As Per The Specific Provision In The Corresponding Statue. It Fails To Dispute That The Assessee’S Impugned Credit Had Been Made Very Well Before The Date Of Filing Return & Therefore, This Disallowance Made U/S. 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 43B Of The Act Is Not Sustainable As Per Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court’S Decision In Cit Vs. M/S Vijay

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…h circumstances we are of the view that the retention money cannot be regarded as income of the assessee. The issue is no longer res integra and has been concluded by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete (Piles) India Pvt. Ltd. [179 ITR 8]. In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on identical facts held that having regard to the terms and conditions of the contract, it could not be held that either 10 per cent or 5 per cent as the case may be, being retention money, became legally due to the assessee on the completion of the work. Only after the assessee fulfilled…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1369/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1369/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 7Th Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Gupta, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1369/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 7th Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCM9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT Respondent by : Shri Alpesh Gupta, AR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 147/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &
Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…e the receipt in question cannot be regarded as income even though the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Simplex Concrete Piles (India)P.Ltd. 179 ITR 8 (Cal) and several other high courts in support of its claim that the sum in question cannot be regarded as income under the normal provisions of the Act. 30. With regard to the claim of the assessee that the said sum cannot also be regarded as part of the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee relied on the following decisions :- (i) Banga…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 109/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Chetan Mehta, FCA, Ashish Jain, FCA &
Section 115JSection 144C(3)Section 92B

…e the receipt in question cannot be regarded as income even though the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Simplex Concrete Piles (India)P.Ltd. 179 ITR 8 (Cal) and several other high courts in support of its claim that the sum in question cannot be regarded as income under the normal provisions of the Act. 30. With regard to the claim of the assessee that the said sum cannot also be regarded as part of the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee relied on the following decisions :- (i) Banga…

DCIT CEN CIR - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. NITIN RAJMAL SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7155/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7155/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-Central Circle-1(4) M/S. Nitin R. Shah Room No.902, Pratistha Bhavan बनाम/ C-113, Shyam Kamal Building 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg. Annex. Vs. 27, Tejpal Road, Agarwal Market Mumbai-400 020. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadps 5476 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 04/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():- 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [Ay] 2008-09 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-47/Ap.68/15- 16 Dated 26/09/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…tin Rajmal Shah Assessment Year-2008-09 received nor accrued to the assessee and therefore, not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simplex Concrete Piles India Pvt. Ltd. 179 ITR 8 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Associated Cables Pvt.Ltd. 286 ITR 596. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the revenue is under appeal before us. 4. After careful consideration of facts and circumstances, we find that first appellate authority has clinched all the issues in the right perspective. The estimated addition…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDUS TOWERS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…ajapathy Naidu 1964 AIR1653 ii) CIT vs. Vazir Sultan & Sons 1959 Supp. 2 SCR 375 iii) S. D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1955 1 SCR 313 iv) Rogers Pyatt Shellack & Co. vs. Secretary of State (1929) ILR 52 Cal 1 v) CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India (P) Ltd. 179 ITR 8 vi) CIT vs. Singari Bai 9. The Ld. AR submitted that due to adoption of AS 19, the assessee debited an additional amount of Rs. 16,21,45,355 to P&L over and above the actual lease expenditure/revenue during the assessment year. The additional expenditure/revenue is nothing but an average of increase in future lease rental over the lease term, whi…

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…ajapathy Naidu 1964 AIR1653 ii) CIT vs. Vazir Sultan & Sons 1959 Supp. 2 SCR 375 iii) S. D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1955 1 SCR 313 iv) Rogers Pyatt Shellack & Co. vs. Secretary of State (1929) ILR 52 Cal 1 v) CIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India (P) Ltd. 179 ITR 8 vi) CIT vs. Singari Bai 9. The Ld. AR submitted that due to adoption of AS 19, the assessee debited an additional amount of Rs. 16,21,45,355 to P&L over and above the actual lease expenditure/revenue during the assessment year. The additional expenditure/revenue is nothing but an average of increase in future lease rental over the lease term, whi…

M/S. STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1172/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

…d lengthy arguments on the issue. On consideration of the facts and arguments we find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1989 179 ITR 8 Cal, wherein it was held as follows:- "Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Accrual of - Assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 - Assessee-company was carrying on construction business and followed mercantile system of accounting - As per terms of contracts entered into with various parties assessee was entitled to get 90 per cent of pay…

M/S. STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1171/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

…d lengthy arguments on the issue. On consideration of the facts and arguments we find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1989 179 ITR 8 Cal, wherein it was held as follows:- "Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Accrual of - Assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 - Assessee-company was carrying on construction business and followed mercantile system of accounting - As per terms of contracts entered into with various parties assessee was entitled to get 90 per cent of pay…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. (179 ITR 8) — Cited in 36 Judgments | BharatTax