DCIT v. Eicher Motors Limited

82 TTJ 61Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#5591 most cited

What is DCIT v. Eicher Motors Limited authority for?

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with the remission or cessation of trading liabilities, is not applicable if the liability continues to subsist and has not been waived off by the creditors. Similarly, provisions for gratuity made on actuarial valuation constitute an ascertained liability and are not to be added to net profits.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Eicher Motors Limited · DCIT v. Eicher Motors Limited · 82 TTJ 61 · 58 SOT 14 · Section 41(1) · cessation of liability · subsisting liability · waiver of liability · provision for gratuity · actuarial valuation · ascertained liability

Also reported as

58 SOT 14

Judgments citing DCIT v. Eicher Motors Limited

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol-III vs. M/S. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/96/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

…O-94 & 95 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/96/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. ITA/173/2007 INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 5th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …for the revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …for the assessee The Court : These appeals filed by the revenue as we…

Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/173/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

…O-94 & 95 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/96/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. ITA/173/2007 INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 5th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …for the revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …for the assessee The Court : These appeals filed by the revenue as we…

M/S. Bajaj Foods Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1647/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Parimalsigh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…2009-10 Page No 9 M/s. Bajaj Foods Ltd, vs. ITO * CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. – Tax Appeal No. 315 of 2013 (Annexure “C”); * Smt. Madhu Mehta vs. DCIT - 181 TTJ 768 (Mum.) (Annexure “D”); * Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT 58 SOT 14 (Annexure “E”). (b) that even otherwise the payment for Ocean freight related to foreign shipping companies who were required to pay taxes as per the provisions of section 172 of the Act and no TDS was required to be deducted on such payments. Our attention was drawn to the following decisions in support. * Steelco Gujarat Ltd. Vs. ACIT – (2018)…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1088/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 40

…cements in support of the said contention:” " CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. – Tax Appeal No. 315 of 2013; " Shir Kashyap Anilbhai Shah - ITA 2266/Ahd/2013; " Smt. Madhu Mehta- 181 TTJ 768 (Mum.); " Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 58 SOT 14; Alternatively, if C&F agents have declared the underlying sum as their income and paid tax thereon, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is unwarranted: • Alternatively, insertion of second proviso to S.40(a)(ia) is declarative and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from01.04.05 and hence, if recipients of concerned amounts have already paid ta…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asahi India Glass Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…uity was made on the basis of actuarial valuation, it was an ascertained liability and the said amount would not be added to the net profits. Similar view has been held by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 82 TTJ 61. The various other decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee also support its case. In view of the above and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the ld. DR against the order of the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the gro…

M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1638/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 43A

…uity was made on the basis of actuarial valuation, it was an ascertained liability and the said amount would not be added to the net profits. Similar view has been held by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 82 TTJ 61. The various other decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee also support its case. In view of the above and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the ld. DR against the order of the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the gro…

M/S Kmg Infotech Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 329/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mulaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri H Padamchand Khincha, C.A
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.329/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 KMF Infotech Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Unit 201/202, Vanguard Rise, 163, Circle-4(1)(1), Konena Agrahara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 017. PAN - AABCK 2065 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.126/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. KMF Infotech Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), Unit 201/202, Vanguard Rise, 163, Bengaluru. Konena Agrahara, Bengaluru-560 017. PAN - AABCK…

Shri Farsuram Ratilal Bhamwala, Bharuch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1935/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr. D.R
Section 234BSection 274Section 41(1)

…l Adhal 247 ITR 710. Since as far as the facts of the present case, the assessee has still shown the creditors as payable, therefore, there is no cessation of liability. In this context, we rely upon the following decisions:- “a. Eicher Mother Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 82 TTJ 61(Ind) Subsisting liability-Since the amounts were payable and had not been waived off by the creditors, the provisions of s. 41(1) were not applicable to the facts of the case. b. New Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 73 TTJ 893 (Ahd 'C') In the absence of any cogent reason and material to come to conclusion that the liabilities outstanding for 1…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2963/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2962/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2961/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2960/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2958/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2957/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2810/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2809/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2808/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2807/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…nder: “10.1 However during the course of the hearing the appellant has put forth before me two decisions substantiating its claim. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through both the decisions. In the case of DCIT Vs. Eicher Motors Limited – 82 TTJ 61, the Hon’ble Indore Bench has held that the provisions for gratuity, made on actuarial valuation was an ascertained liability and the same could not be added back to the book profits. In the other case cited by the Appellant the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Greaves Chitram Ud Vs. DCIT – (9 SOT 143) has also held that the gratuity liability, w…

Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 738/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 4(1) Office Floor 8 Mumbai I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No.Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 4(1) (1) Vs. M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Mumbai Office Floor 8 I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi / Shri Vidhi Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…Sanghvi Savla Stock Brokers Ltd.(152 ITD 820) (Mum.)  ACIT v. M/s. Maersk India Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.3072/Mum/2013)  Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd. v. Addnl CIT (152 ITD 191) (Mum)  DCIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd, 67 SOT 306 (Del T)  Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. v. ACIT 58 SOT 14 (Ahm) 12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit for the disallowance of net enhancement and customization expenses. 13. Next grievance of assessee relates to disallowance of net repairs and maintenance expenses after allowing depreciation at the rate of 10%. 14. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 15. W…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asahi India Glass Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2183/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Asahi India Glass Limited, Dcit, Circle- 2(1), 38, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Vs. Phase- Iii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sandip Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…ty was made on the basis of actuarial valuation, it was an ascertained liability and the said amount would not be added to the net profits. Similar view has been held by the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 82 TTJ 61. The various other decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee also support its case. In view of the above and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the ld. DR against the order of the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the g…