Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modipon Ltd.

334 ITR 102High Court2011#2717 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modipon Ltd. authority for?

An expense booked in a later year, even if relating to an earlier period, does not result in revenue loss if tax would have been lower in the earlier year. Expenses relating to prior years can be allowed in the year they crystallize, especially when there is no loss to revenue.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Modipon Ltd. · 334 ITR 102 · disallowance of expenses · expenses relating to earlier year · no loss to revenue · mercantile system of accounting · crystallization of liability

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 127Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(24)(x)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211section 36(i)(va)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)true and full disclosure

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modipon Ltd.

Dy.C.I.T. Cir 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. M/S Secl, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 103/BIL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…ome or expenses, the right to receive or the liability to pay which has come to be crystallized, which is to be taken into account under the mercantile system of maintaining books of account.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modipon Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 102 (Delhi) wherein it has held that “had this expense were booked in earlier year, the assessee would have paid lower taxes. In any case, there is no loss of revenue”. 7.24 In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7.25 We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the settled position of law and totality of the facts…

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 401/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…ome or expenses, the right to receive or the liability to pay which has come to be crystallized, which is to be taken into account under the mercantile system of maintaining books of account.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modipon Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 102 (Delhi) wherein it has held that “had this expense were booked in earlier year, the assessee would have paid lower taxes. In any case, there is no loss of revenue”. 7.24 In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7.25 We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the settled position of law and totality of the facts…

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. M/S Secl, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 382/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…ome or expenses, the right to receive or the liability to pay which has come to be crystallized, which is to be taken into account under the mercantile system of maintaining books of account.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modipon Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 102 (Delhi) wherein it has held that “had this expense were booked in earlier year, the assessee would have paid lower taxes. In any case, there is no loss of revenue”. 7.24 In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7.25 We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the settled position of law and totality of the facts…

Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coafields Limited, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 204/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…ome or expenses, the right to receive or the liability to pay which has come to be crystallized, which is to be taken into account under the mercantile system of maintaining books of account.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modipon Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 102 (Delhi) wherein it has held that “had this expense were booked in earlier year, the assessee would have paid lower taxes. In any case, there is no loss of revenue”. 7.24 In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7.25 We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the settled position of law and totality of the facts…

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 201/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…ome or expenses, the right to receive or the liability to pay which has come to be crystallized, which is to be taken into account under the mercantile system of maintaining books of account.” In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modipon Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 102 (Delhi) wherein it has held that “had this expense were booked in earlier year, the assessee would have paid lower taxes. In any case, there is no loss of revenue”. 7.24 In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7.25 We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the settled position of law and totality of the facts…

Hitz Fm Radio India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9043/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Sr. DR

…re is no loss to the Revenue. From this angle also, disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.2,51,74,016 deserves to be deleted for which reliance is placed on the following case laws: .  358 ITR 205, CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. and Ors (Supreme Court)  334 ITR 102, CIT vs. Modipon Ltd. (Jurisdictional Delhi H.C.).” 10. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. There is not an iota of doubt that there was a dispute which later traveled to the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and pursuant to Hon’ble High Court order, certain amounts were deposited. Assessee’s plea that the liability crystallized…

Kamla Retail Ltd., Now Known As M/S Ethos Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, R-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1023/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S. Kamla Retail Ltd. Additional Cit, Range-1, बनाम Now Known As Ethos Limited, Chadigarh. Sco-88-89, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadck2345N

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 30Section 40

…re of the business expenditure and the issue is tax neutral as the expenses have to be allowed in the earlier year or in the current year. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Modipon Limited Ltd 334 ITR 102. The submissions of the assessee as well the Remand Report of the AO were considered by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) thereafter returned a finding that the appellant has filed certain letters exchanged with JW Marriot and the appellant deferred the payment of rent on its own sweet will in financial year 2008-09. It was further held by the Ld.CI…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4436/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…g Officer, however, disallowed the amount of ₹ 55,36,471/- which was on account reimbursement relating to employees; and legal and professional expenses. 43. Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modipon Ltd., 334 ITR 102 (Del) has allowed the appeal. 44. After considering the rival submissions, we find that precisely similar issue has arisen in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2006-07 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the same nature of expenditures, after observing and holding as under: “231. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. ₹ 18.51 lakh…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 4061/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…g Officer, however, disallowed the amount of ₹ 55,36,471/- which was on account reimbursement relating to employees; and legal and professional expenses. 43. Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modipon Ltd., 334 ITR 102 (Del) has allowed the appeal. 44. After considering the rival submissions, we find that precisely similar issue has arisen in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2006-07 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the same nature of expenditures, after observing and holding as under: “231. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. ₹ 18.51 lakh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…period and after following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shriram Piston – 174 taxman 147, the disallowance is deleted. The reliance of the ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Modipan Ltd. - 334 ITR 102 is also apt as the expenditure are settled during the year. Further genuineness of these expenditure is not in doubt and allowabaility of these expenditure is also not in question except classifying them as prior period expenses and there is no difference in rate of taxes for respective years. In the result, we confirm the order of the CIT (A) in…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…period and after following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shriram Piston – 174 taxman 147, the disallowance is deleted. The reliance of the ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Modipan Ltd. - 334 ITR 102 is also apt as the expenditure are settled during the year. Further genuineness of these expenditure is not in doubt and allowabaility of these expenditure is also not in question except classifying them as prior period expenses and there is no difference in rate of taxes for respective years. In the result, we confirm the order of the CIT (A) in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ns to the preceding year. However, since the amount has been crystallized during the year, the same is allowable in the current year, the same cannot be treated as prior period item. Assessee is relying on the following judgements: CIT vs Modipon Ltd. (2011) 334 ITR 102 (Del) CIT vs Shri Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxmann 147 (Del) Saurasthra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. vs CIT (1995) 213 ITR 523 (Guj) 17 CIT(A) has deleted this addition holding that the amount had been crystallized during the year, even services had been rendered during the year and therefore, the amount cannot be treated as prio…

The Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 1033/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1033/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 1067 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1033/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. -vs- DCIT, Circle-3, Kolkata [PAN: AABCT 1067 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolkata [in short the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Power Co. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5493/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 5493/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Delhi Power Co. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Pre-Fabricated Building, Tax, Circle-10(1), New Delhi Rajghat Power House, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd5265G Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.07.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xiii, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 144

…Delhi Power Co. Ltd. 5. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Saurashra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs CIT (1995) 213 ITR 523 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kahaitan Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 0150 (Del.) " CIT Vs Modipon Ltd. (No.1) 334 ITR 102 (Del.) " CIT Vs Shriram Piston & Rings Ltdd. 008 DTR (Del.) 209 6. It was further submitted as under: “6. The Ld Assessing Officer has failed to verify the actual nature of expenses and disallowed the expense merely on the presentation of the amount in the Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss Account i.e. expense relating to DVB period (prior to unbundl…

Blue Star Civil Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 1434/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1434/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Blue Star Civil Engineering Company -Vs- Acit, Circle-Haldia [Pan: Aaccb 2247 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…d allowed the claim of prior period expenses in similar circumstances. Our view is further endorsed by the following decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court: a) CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. reported in 339 ITR 382 (Delhi) b) CIT vs. Modipon Ltd. reported in 334 ITR 102 Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and applying the same to the facts of the instant case, we allow the claim of prior period expenses of Rs. 3,04,500/- for assessment year 2011-12 and accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justi…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Industrial Investment Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 894/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Industrial Investment Bank Of India [Pan: Aabci 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s Industrial Investment Bank of India [PAN: AABCI 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA Date of Hearing : 27.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the independent orders of the Learned Commissio…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Industrial Investment Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1871/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Industrial Investment Bank Of India [Pan: Aabci 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s Industrial Investment Bank of India [PAN: AABCI 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA Date of Hearing : 27.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the independent orders of the Learned Commissio…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Industrial Investment Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1870/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Industrial Investment Bank Of India [Pan: Aabci 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A Nos. 1870, 1871 & 894/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s Industrial Investment Bank of India [PAN: AABCI 0324 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA Date of Hearing : 27.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the independent orders of the Learned Commissio…

DCIT/Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Somani Ceremics Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2210/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2210/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Somani Ceramics Ltd. [Pan: Aaecs 0763 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Sanghai, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…enses was being carried out by the assessee in the past and the same has been allowed by the ld. AO in the earlier assessment proceedings. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modipan Ltd. reported in 334 ITR 102. The Ld. CIT(A) having verified the entire details of each of the prior period items (net) debited to the profit and loss account observed that these expenses (net) had been crystallized only during the year under appeal. He also observed that the assessee has been consistently following this method of accounting and the same has been accepted by…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…he disallowance on the ground that the expenses are of routine nature and the liability to pay crystallized during the year under consideration. Further, the CIT(A) has placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Modipon Ltd. 334 ITR 102 (Del). 54. The ld. CIT DR relied on the order of AO and on the other hand the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the order of Tribunal in immediately preceding AY 2006-07. 55. We have gone through order of AO & CIT(A). It is noticed that the issue of prior period was adjudicated by ITAT for A…