CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd.

199 ITR 714Reported decision#8448 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd.

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2963/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2962/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2961/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2960/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2958/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2957/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2810/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2809/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2808/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2807/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…hat the assessee had only made the provision and not made actual payment, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 9.2 On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sree Makakahya Tea Co. (P) Ltd. 199 ITR 714, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that even if any sum is allowable as per section 40A(7) if it does not satisfy the payment criterion of section 43B of the Act that will not be allowed. Had it not been so there was no need for the legislature to bring in section 43B(b) of the Act which covers any sum payable to a gratuity fund. Therefore, in view of…

SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 986/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT &
Section 10BSection 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 43B

…s it is actually paid. In this case, what was made is only the provision, therefore, in view of Section 43B of the Act, the same cannot be allowed. The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Shri Kamakhya Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (199 ITR 714). 8. On the contrary, Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 40A(7)(b) of the Act is a special provision for allowing provisions for payment towards approved Gratuity fund. The LIC Gratuity fund was approved by the Commissioner. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1170/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT &
Section 10BSection 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 43B

…s it is actually paid. In this case, what was made is only the provision, therefore, in view of Section 43B of the Act, the same cannot be allowed. The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Shri Kamakhya Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (199 ITR 714). 8. On the contrary, Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 40A(7)(b) of the Act is a special provision for allowing provisions for payment towards approved Gratuity fund. The LIC Gratuity fund was approved by the Commissioner. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 738/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT &
Section 10BSection 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 43B

…s it is actually paid. In this case, what was made is only the provision, therefore, in view of Section 43B of the Act, the same cannot be allowed. The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Shri Kamakhya Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (199 ITR 714). 8. On the contrary, Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 40A(7)(b) of the Act is a special provision for allowing provisions for payment towards approved Gratuity fund. The LIC Gratuity fund was approved by the Commissioner. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance…