CIT v. United Motors (India) Ltd.

181 ITR 347High Court1990#12305 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 145 Section 14A Section 270A Section 37 Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)(xv)icds mercantile system of accounting disallowance under section 14a section 145 section 37 section 14a section 10 section 25 transfer prescribed person

Judgments citing CIT v. United Motors (India) Ltd.

Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 254(1)Section 270A

…Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 115 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) (HC), ➢ CIT V. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation (1964)51 ITR 240 (Mad.) (HC), ➢ CIT v. Premier Vegetable Products (1997) 227 ITR 931 (Raj.) (HC), ➢ CIT v. United Motors (India) Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 347 (Bom.) (HC), ➢ Indian Express Newspaper Ltd. v. FCIT (2024) 298 taxman 507 (Bom.) (HC), ➢ Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 1448/Mum/2016, ➢ CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical - Limited IT Appeal NOS. 278, 312, 807 - And 1578 OF 2010 (Delhi) (HC). 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The l…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…t. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following: State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016  CIT vs. Mahindra Ugine & Steel Co. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) (Bom.) [see para 2 on page 2]  CIT vs. United Motors (India) Ltd. [1990] 181 ITR 347 (Bombay) (Bom.) [last para page 3-4] 128. In fact on exact similar issue of deductibility of wage revision relating to the same Agreement, pending finalisation of wage settlement, is also decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of other Bank‟s. In the case of Bank of India vs. DCIT [ITA No. 3082/Mum/2015] [Mum. Trib]the asse…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ought to be allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following:  CIT vs. Mahindra Ugine & Steel Co. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) (Bom.) [see para 2 on page 2]  CIT vs. United Motors (India) Ltd. [1990] 181 ITR 347 (Bombay) (Bom.) [last para page 3-4] 128. In fact on exact similar issue of deductibility of wage revision relating to the same Agreement, pending finalisation of 118 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 wage settlement, is also decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of other Bank’s. In the case of Bank…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3539/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Firstsource Solutions Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 5Th Floor, Paradigm B Of Income Tax, Circle- 5(2) Mind Space, New Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, Malad (W) Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…were made on account of accounting compulsions under matching principle and hence the same is allowable as deduction. In this regard, the assessee relied on following case law:- (a) Bharat Earth Movers (245 ITR 428)(SC) (b) CIT Vs. United Motors (India) Ltd (181 ITR 347)(Bom) (c) Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (180 Taxman 422)(SC) (d) CIT Vs. Nokia Siemens Networks India (14 taxmann.com 84)(Kar) 21. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has not shown that the liability in respect of above said expenses has accrued during the year under consideration. 9 M/s. Firstsource Solutions Ltd.,…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R

…should be allowed, although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability........” 7.5 On identical facts, the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. United Motors (India) Ltd (181 ITR 347) has allowed deduction in respect of a liability for which provision was made on account of change in service conditions of the workmen. In the said case, negotiations with the trade unions resulted in settlements in May 1972/ October 1972. The company paid amounts in May and June 1972, which were claimed as a deduction by the company in the AY 1…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Icici Onesource Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2658/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 154

A.C.I.T., Cir-II, Kolkata vs. M/S. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1928/KOL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava, CIT/ ld.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “ C” BENCH, KOLKATA Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member, and Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member I.T.A No. 1928/Kol/2008 A.Y 1999-2000 A.C.I.T, Cir-11, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd (formerly known as Philips Electronics India Ltd.) PAN: AABCP 7706L (Appellant/department) (Respondent/assessee) I.T.A No. 1815/Kol/2008 A.Y 1999-2000 M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-11, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/department: Shri S. Srivastava, CIT/ ld.DR For the Respondent/ assessee:Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advocat…