CIT v. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd.

278 ITR 337High Court2005#2259 most cited

What is CIT v. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. authority for?

A provision for warranty liability, even if quantified on an estimated basis, is considered a definite and certain business liability, qualifying for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, and is not a contingent liability.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. · Vinitec Corporation · 278 ITR 337 · Section 37(1) · provision for warranty · warranty claims · contingent liability · definite and certain liability · estimated liability · business expenditure deduction

Also reported as

196 CTR 369

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 147Section 148Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 44

Issues it is cited on

section 33acproximate nexusdepreciation on softwaresection 10(35)dependent agent pesection 64service pesection 135csr expendituresection 40(a)(i)weighted deductionfirst proviso to section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3658/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltk Elevator Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), Thyssenkrupp Elevator C. R. Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Tk Elevator Private Limited Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), (Earlier Known As Room No. 192A C. R. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv& Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

…by drawing erroneous conclusions on the facts. 2.2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rotork Control v. CIT [2009] 180 Taxman 422 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vinitec Corp Pvt Ltd (2005) 278 ITR 337, on same facts. 3. That the learned CIT(A), based on erroneous observations and irrelevant considerations, has erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 2,20,05,000 on account of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the assessee's international transaction with regard to payment of Corporate Mark Fee to its associated enterprise. nam…

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3015/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltk Elevator Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), Thyssenkrupp Elevator C. R. Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Tk Elevator Private Limited Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), (Earlier Known As Room No. 192A C. R. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv& Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

…by drawing erroneous conclusions on the facts. 2.2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rotork Control v. CIT [2009] 180 Taxman 422 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vinitec Corp Pvt Ltd (2005) 278 ITR 337, on same facts. 3. That the learned CIT(A), based on erroneous observations and irrelevant considerations, has erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 2,20,05,000 on account of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the assessee's international transaction with regard to payment of Corporate Mark Fee to its associated enterprise. nam…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561  CIT vsVinitecCorpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) He further submitted that the appeals filed by the department, inter-alia, on this issue before the Delhi High Court for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 have not been admitted. Accordingly, he pleaded to allow these grounds. 20. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of lower authorities. 21. Considered the rival…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561  CIT vsVinitecCorpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) He further submitted that the appeals filed by the department, inter-alia, on this issue before the Delhi High Court for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 have not been admitted. Accordingly, he pleaded to allow these grounds. 20. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of lower authorities. 21. Considered the rival…

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ly when actual claims may arise and that the assessee would not be justified in estimating a warranty liability. 17. While dealing with this aspect, the Court observed:- "14. We may take note of a decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. 278 ITR 337 which is referred by the Tribunal also. In that case the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act, inter alia, on the provision made by it in the year against future claims by customers under the warranty clause which was part of the sale. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that it was a contingent liability. The Tribunal…

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1 2 3

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

…nly when actual claims may arise and that the assessee would not be justified in estimating a warranty liability. 17. While dealing with this aspect, the Court observed:-"14. We may take note of a decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. 278 ITR 337 which is referred by the Tribunal also. In that case the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act, inter alia, on the provision made by it in the year against future claims by customers under the warranty clause which was part of the sale. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that it was a contingent liability. The Tribunal…

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ly when actual claims may arise and that the assessee would not be justified in estimating a warranty liability. 17. While dealing with this aspect, the Court observed:- "14. We may take note of a decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. 278 ITR 337 which is referred by the Tribunal also. In that case the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act, inter alia, on the provision made by it in the year against future claims by customers under the warranty clause which was part of the sale. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that it was a contingent liability. The Tribunal…

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ly when actual claims may arise and that the assessee would not be justified in estimating a warranty liability. 17. While dealing with this aspect, the Court observed:- "14. We may take note of a decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. 278 ITR 337 which is referred by the Tribunal also. In that case the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act, inter alia, on the provision made by it in the year against future claims by customers under the warranty clause which was part of the sale. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that it was a contingent liability. The Tribunal…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI vs. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-551/2023HC Delhi30 Sept 2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260A

…meet claims arising out of warranties issued by it to its customers can be taken as a permissible deduction under section 37 is no longer res integra in the light of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinitec Corpn (P.) Ltd, 278 ITR 337. This Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 and Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand Ltd., 222 ITR 697 held that the liability arising out of a warranty is an allowable deduction even when the amount payable by the assessee is quantified and discharged…

ROTOMAG MOTORS AND CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 666/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 666/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Rotomag Motors & Assistant Commissioner Controls Private Of Income Tax Vs. Limited Anand Circle Phase Iv, 2102-3, B/H. R K Metal, V.U. Nagar, Anand – 388121, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr9061K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Shailesh J. Shah, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. Dr 22/08/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024

For Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…cial precedents to support assessee’s claim that the provision for warranty expenses, even when made for the first time, is admissible if based on reasonable and scientific estimation. Notable cases cited include: • CIT v. Vinite Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [2005] 278 ITR 337 (Del): The court allowed the provision for warranty expenses based on reasonable estimation. • Rotork Controls India Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC): Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed a provision for warranty expenses where it was based on past data and made using a reliable estimation method. • Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC):…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD.)

ITA/304/2024HC Delhi30 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 37

…unexpired periods of warranty could be considered only when actual claims may arise and that the assessee would not be justified in estimating a warranty liability. “14. We may take note of a decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. 278 ITR 337 which is referred by the Tribunal also. In that case the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act, inter alia, on the provision made by it in the year against future claims by customers under the warranty clause which was part of the sale. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that it was a contingent liability. The Tri…

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

…(SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 254 has held that:- g) “21. In conclusion, we may state that in order to find out if an expenditure is deductible the following have to be taken into account (i) wheth…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

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

…tingent liability is deductible business expenditure. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd.v s CIT 314 ITR 62; judgement of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs Vinitex Corporation (P.) Ltd. 278 ITR 337; judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Beema Mfrs (P) Ltd. 130 Taxman 400. He further submitted that the issue is otherwise covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 991 & 992/2011 for the AYs 1998-99 and 1997-98 vide order dated 01.09.2011. Further, he…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

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

…tingent liability is deductible business expenditure. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd.v s CIT 314 ITR 62; judgement of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs Vinitex Corporation (P.) Ltd. 278 ITR 337; judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Beema Mfrs (P) Ltd. 130 Taxman 400. He further submitted that the issue is otherwise covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 991 & 992/2011 for the AYs 1998-99 and 1997-98 vide order dated 01.09.2011. Further, he…

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

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

ITA 396/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MEETHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 396/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s. Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd The ACIT 424/24, Ravan Bahici, Kaiser Ganj Vs. Circle-1 Ajmer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCR 3896 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocawte jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri P.R.…

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 493/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Goswami, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80G

…art by the assessee to meet claims arising out of warranties issued by it to its customers can be taken as a permissible deduction under section 37 is no longer res integra in the light of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Vinitec Corpn (P.) Ltd [2005] 278 ITR 337 '. This Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. C/7[2000] 245 1 PR 428 and IRC v. Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 697 (PC) held that the liability arising out of a warranty is an allowable deduction even when the amount payable by the assessee is quantified and discharged in future. The…

M/S ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, KOTA

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

ITA 617/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 617/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Allen Career Institute cuke The ITO Vs. CP-6, Indra Nagar Ward 2(1) Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktL…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 246/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 263Section 271

…CIT vs. Singari Bai [1945] 13 ITR 224 (All.) Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. 57 ITR 521 (SC) Metal Box Co. of India vs. Their workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) CIT vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. (196 CTR 369) [Delhi] CIT Tamil Nadu vs. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. (141 ITR 415) [Mad] ITAT Chennai & Commissioner Appeals has decided this issue favorable in AY 2004- 05 3.3.23 Similar issue came before CIT(A)-XI, Chennai in AY 2004-05 first year of adoption this policy of accounting provision for copper concentrate where CIT(A) held in favour of the appellant…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRAZIANO TRANSMISSION INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2575/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37

…nses. However, the main contention of the Ld. AR that the LTA is paid to the employees every year and it is also contended that this is a certain liability and for his the Ld. AR has relied on case of Bharat Earth Moves 245 ITR 428 SC and Vinitec Corporation 278 ITR 337 Delhi High Court. Apart from this the Ld. AR has also brought to my notice that the same expenditure was allowed by the AO in his order u/s. 143(3) for AY 2009-10 and AY 2011-12. So in other words, it is preceding year as well as the succeeding year the claim of the appellant has been accepted. The Ld. AR has contended that the principle of c…

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3