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.

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

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

ITA 3846/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…

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

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…following the decision of Hon’ble Page 120 of 144 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 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…following the decision of Hon’ble Page 120 of 144 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…