What is CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. authority for?

Provision for bad and doubtful debts, if it amounts to an actual write-off by reducing the sundry debtors balance from the asset side of the Balance Sheet, cannot be added back when computing book profits under Section 115JB read with Explanation (i) of the Income Tax Act.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd.?

55 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (397 ITR 55), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 194H, Section 35(2AB).

CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (397 ITR 55)

LUPIN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

…ssee‟s own case for the AY. 2009-10 (ITA No. 1920/Mum/2020 & C.O. No. 129/Mum/2021 dated 03- 02-2023), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 55 (Guj) has held that Provision for doubtful debts should not be added while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act and the relevant findings therein read as under: “10.8 We notice that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (supra) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Yokogawa Ltd (su…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…CIT(A) erred in initiating rectification proceedings without considering that the penalty in the original order passed under section 250 was deleted after considering the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 55.\n\n3. Re: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.11,00,000/-:\n\n3.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty.\n\n3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the validity of the penal…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…CIT(A) erred in initiating rectification proceedings without considering that the penalty in the original order passed under section 250 was deleted after considering the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 55. 3. Re: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 11,00,000/-: 3.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the validity of the penalty ord…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…CIT(A) erred in initiating rectification proceedings without considering that the penalty in the original order passed under section 250 was deleted after considering the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 55. 3. Re: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 11,00,000/-: 3.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the validity of the penalty ord…

SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7311/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…essee also wishes to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. 220 Taxman 1 (Kar) and the larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. 397 ITR 55 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble High Court taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT323 ITR 166 (SC) and its implication on the interpretation of clause (i) of the Explanationto section 115JB of the Act held that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts which amounts to an actual write of…

SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIR-15(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7326/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…essee also wishes to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. 220 Taxman 1 (Kar) and the larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. 397 ITR 55 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble High Court taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT323 ITR 166 (SC) and its implication on the interpretation of clause (i) of the Explanationto section 115JB of the Act held that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts which amounts to an actual write of…

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 83/RJT/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N…

INTAS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

…in the current year, the same was reduced from debtor’s account and was, therefore, eligible for deduction in the current year itself. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. 397 ITR 55 (Guj.). 21. Per contra, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the nature of the claim was examined by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings and found to be in the nature of provision for bad ITA No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2011-12 - 17 – debt only. The AO had made specific query about the nature of this claim and…

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

…Vijaya Bank (supra) is in the context of section 11 5JB qua provision for doubtful debts also followed by Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Ltd 220 Taxman I and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 55 for doubtful debt while computing book profit u/s.II5JB). 43. He also submitted that similar issue has arisen in the Joint venture company M/s Asian Paints PPG Pvt Ltd. The ld. CIT (A) had ruled the issue in favour of company. The department had challenged the order of the ld.CIT (A) before the Mumbai Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal.…

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

ITA 2700/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

…Vijaya Bank (supra) is in the context of section 11 5JB qua provision for doubtful debts also followed by Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Ltd 220 Taxman I and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 55 for doubtful debt while computing book profit u/s.II5JB). 43. He also submitted that similar issue has arisen in the Joint venture company M/s Asian Paints PPG Pvt Ltd. The ld. CIT (A) had ruled the issue in favour of company. The department had challenged the order of the ld.CIT (A) before the Mumbai Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal.…

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 2696/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

…Vijaya Bank (supra) is in the context of section 11 5JB qua provision for doubtful debts also followed by Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Ltd 220 Taxman I and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 55 for doubtful debt while computing book profit u/s.II5JB). 43. He also submitted that similar issue has arisen in the Joint venture company M/s Asian Paints PPG Pvt Ltd. The ld. CIT (A) had ruled the issue in favour of company. The department had challenged the order of the ld.CIT (A) before the Mumbai Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal.…