DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.

351 ITR 314High Court2013#4040 most cited

What is DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd. authority for?

Subsidies received for setting up a unit or expanding an existing unit, or entertainment tax exemptions for such purposes, are capital in nature and not revenue. These can be reduced while computing book profits under MAT provisions.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,402 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd. · subsidy · capital receipt · revenue receipt · book profits · MAT · section 115JB · entertainment tax exemption

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

minimum alternate taxtax benefitbook profitssection 260section 54section 115jbsection 115jliable to taxsection 254section 115section 11section 26

Judgments citing DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Pvr Ltd

ITA/113/2025HC Delhi29 Apr 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 260A

…he learned ITAT rejected the appeals preferred by the Revenue by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Chapalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom) and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.: [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Gujarat). 12. The appeal preferred by the Revenue against the decision in CIT v. Chapalkar Brothers (supra) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolhapur v. M/s Chaphalkar Brothers Pune: 2017 INSC 1198. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited : (2008) 9…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ng of the business but for setting up of the unit in the backward area or the subsidy received for setting up a multiplexes or theatres then, in that case, such subsidy can be treated as capital in nature and not revenue in nature: DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (351 ITR 314) (Guj.); Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (198 Taxmann 122) (J&K); CIT vs. Tiruttani Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. (322 ITR 59) (Mad.); and CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. (335 ITR 438) (Cal.). Now, a question arises as to whether the impugned subsidy be reduced while computing the book profit under the MAT provisions of the Act: The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s. B…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ng of the business but for setting up of the unit in the backward area or the subsidy received for setting up a multiplexes or theatres then, in that case, such subsidy can be treated as capital in nature and not revenue in nature: DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (351 ITR 314) (Guj.); Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (198 Taxmann 122) (J&K); CIT vs. Tiruttani Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. (322 ITR 59) (Mad.); and CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. (335 ITR 438) (Cal.). Now, a question arises as to whether the impugned subsidy be reduced while computing the book profit under the MAT provisions of the Act: The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s. B…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 717/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

…ble to tax. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat chargeable to tax. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat chargeable to tax. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) wherein the High Court held that entertainment tax exemption he High Court held that entertainment tax exemption he High Court held that entertainment tax exemption enabling the assessee to set up…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1421/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

…ble to tax. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat chargeable to tax. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat chargeable to tax. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) wherein the High Court held that entertainment tax exemption he High Court held that entertainment tax exemption he High Court held that entertainment tax exemption enabling the assessee to set up…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155J

…bsidy was to promote the construction of multiplex theatre complexes, the receipt of subsidy was held to be a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) wherein the High Court held that entertainment tax 11 ITA No. 716, 1419 & 1420/Mum/2020-Everest Industries Ltd. exemption enabling the assessee to set up a new unit or expand the existing unit is a capital receipt. 10. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Shree Balaji Alloys [Civil Appeal N…

Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 452/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

…t liability and hence is allowable as deduction. Therefore, the question of addition to book profits does not arise. As regards provision for leave encashment, following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (351 ITR 314), the same is allowable as deduction. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra) held as follows: "16. Coming to the question No. 2, we notice that the same arises out of the Tribunal's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s view that the provision of Rs. 5,10,000/…

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…umulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.” 2. DCIT vs. INOX Leisure Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Guj) “That though the actual payment of gratuity might be made at a later point of time upon the periodical release of the employees from service, it was a ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 34 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce provision been made on the actuarial basis, and could not be stated to be an unascertained liability s…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1199/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…umulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.” 2. DCIT vs. INOX Leisure Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Guj) “That though the actual payment of gratuity might be made at a later point of time upon the periodical release of the employees from service, it was a ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 34 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce provision been made on the actuarial basis, and could not be stated to be an unascertained liability s…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2174/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…umulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.” 2. DCIT vs. INOX Leisure Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Guj) “That though the actual payment of gratuity might be made at a later point of time upon the periodical release of the employees from service, it was a ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 34 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce provision been made on the actuarial basis, and could not be stated to be an unascertained liability s…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2173/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…umulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.” 2. DCIT vs. INOX Leisure Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Guj) “That though the actual payment of gratuity might be made at a later point of time upon the periodical release of the employees from service, it was a ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 34 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce provision been made on the actuarial basis, and could not be stated to be an unascertained liability s…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1583/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…umulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.” 2. DCIT vs. INOX Leisure Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Guj) “That though the actual payment of gratuity might be made at a later point of time upon the periodical release of the employees from service, it was a ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 34 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce provision been made on the actuarial basis, and could not be stated to be an unascertained liability s…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…umulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.” 2. DCIT vs. INOX Leisure Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Guj) “That though the actual payment of gratuity might be made at a later point of time upon the periodical release of the employees from service, it was a ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 34 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce provision been made on the actuarial basis, and could not be stated to be an unascertained liability s…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1581/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…umulation as applicable on the relevant date, was entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts of the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability was not a contingent liability.” 2. DCIT vs. INOX Leisure Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 314 (Guj) “That though the actual payment of gratuity might be made at a later point of time upon the periodical release of the employees from service, it was a ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 34 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank of Commerce provision been made on the actuarial basis, and could not be stated to be an unascertained liability s…

Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7388/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15
Section 115J

…A No.3438/Mum/2003 (iv) DCIT vs. Central Coal Fields Limited, ITA No.235/Ran/2016 (v) Housing And Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Add. CIT, ITA 541/2019, (Delhi HC) (vi) PCIT vs. NHPC Ltd., ITA 356, 2015, P&H High Court (v) DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314, Gujarat HC (vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC), (vii) CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd., 251 ITR 15, Bombay HC (viii) M/s. Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC) (ix) Ircon International Limited, v. Add. CIT, ITA Nos. 1825/Del/2005, ITAT DELHI (x) Asahi India Glass Limited v. DCIT, ITA No.1637/Del/2014, ITAT DELHI…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 795/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 793 & 795/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R
Section 115JSection 2(24)(x)

…Although actual quantification may not be always be possible, the liability is in praesenti though it is likely to be discharged at a future date. Similar issue has come up before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) where it was held that ascertained liabilities cannot be subjected to the adjustment under clause (c) to explanation 1 to section 115JB. Thus, we find merit in the grievance of the assessee on this score. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal as noted above is allowed. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 795/Ahd/2017 (…

Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 793/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 793 & 795/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R
Section 115JSection 2(24)(x)

…Although actual quantification may not be always be possible, the liability is in praesenti though it is likely to be discharged at a future date. Similar issue has come up before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) where it was held that ascertained liabilities cannot be subjected to the adjustment under clause (c) to explanation 1 to section 115JB. Thus, we find merit in the grievance of the assessee on this score. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal as noted above is allowed. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 795/Ahd/2017 (…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

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

…R 309 (Del.) • Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P.) Ltd.: 373 ITR 14 (Del) • CIT vs. Siya Ram Garg (HUF): 237 CTR 21 (P&H) • CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd.: 386 ITR 154 (P&H) • CIT vs Rasoi Ltd.: 335 ITR 438 (Cal.) • DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj) • Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : 394 ITR 192 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.) • DCIT vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Samta Chavigarh: ITA No. 144 of 2007 (Raj)/ 222 Taxman 205 (Mag.) • Shiv Shakti Flour Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT: ITA No. 6 of 2014 (Gau) • Honda Siel Cars India Ltd…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

….), CIT vs Rasoi Ltd.: 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), CIT vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd.: 238 ITR 445 (Cal.), CIT vs. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.: 263 ITR 388 (Mad), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : 394 ITR 192 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj), CIT vs. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB.). 11.2. He drew support from the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P.) Ltd.: 373 ITR 14. Ld. AR fu…

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Years 2007-08 as well

ITA 511/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri P. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)

…t liability and hence is allowable as deduction. Therefore, the question of addition to book profits does not arise. As regards provision for leave encashment, following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. (351 ITR 314), the same is allowable as deduction. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra) held as follows: “16. Coming to the question No. 2, we notice that the same arises out of the Tribunal's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s view that the provision of Rs. 5,10,000/…

DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd. (351 ITR 314) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax