Greaves Chitram Ud v. DCIT

9 SOT 143Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#10783 most cited

What is Greaves Chitram Ud v. DCIT authority for?

Gratuity liability, if based on actuarial valuation, is an ascertained liability and deductible from book profits.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Greaves Chitram Ud v. DCIT · 9 SOT 143 · gratuity liability · actuarial valuation · ascertained liability · book profits · deduction · MAT

Judgments citing Greaves Chitram Ud v. DCIT

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

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

…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, which was based on actuarial valuation, was deductible from the book profits as ascertained liability. As the fads and circumstances of the appellant are exactly similar to the case discussed above and as it has not been denied by the Assessing Officer that the provision for gratuity has been made on actu…

Greaves Chitram Ud v. DCIT (9 SOT 143) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax