How many judgments cite Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

206 judgments on BharatTax cite Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 11.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 66Supreme Court of India1959#438 most cited

What is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

206

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37(1) · definition of expenditure · business expenditure deduction · commercial expediency · wholly and exclusively for business · expenditure irretrievably gone · Sections 30-36

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 234C Section 11 Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(h)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 13(2)accumulation of income section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)infrastructure facility section 13(1)section 30 business expediency mercantile system of accounting commercial expediency section 40(a)(i)profits and gains of business or profession

Judgments citing Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…to the assessee irrevocably in the sense, that the same would not be withdrawn by the Department subsequently, the liability to include the interest in the income does not arise. The very concept of accrual supports this finding and also the Supreme Court in 37 ITR 66 has though explained the term accrual in the context of expenditure, nevertheless the decision is applicable for recognition of income even, more forcefully. The liability to tax interest arises when it became irrevocably due and not when the refund is actually given to the assessee. Therefore as further particulars are not forthcoming the said add…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

M/S. Bain & Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3541/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

…in the A.Y 2009-10. The expenses were claimed on actual basis and this would have resulted in aberration of accounts. The Assessing Officer followed decision in the case of Sree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v CIT (1985) 56 ITR 585 (SC) and Indian Molasses Co Ltd. v CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC). I find no infirmity in the approach of the Assessing Officer after considering the contention of the appellant and hence the ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.1 The counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming…

M/S Mrinalini Biri Manufacturing Co., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 85/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40

…s is towards a liability actually existing at the time but setting apart money which might become expenditure on the happening of an event is not expenditure. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 at pages 76 and 78. A distinction is often made between an actual liability in praesenti and a liability de futuro, which for the time being is only contingent. The former is deductible but not the latter. 24. Amount set apart by way of provision or by way of a reserve or fund to meet the liability of gratuity as and when it becomes payable will no…

DCIT - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co .Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3151/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3151 & 3149/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3(2)(2) M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K Road, New India Assurance Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai -400 001

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, A.R

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 69B

…we are of the view that the amortization claim cannot be considered as 'an expenditure or allowance within the meaning of rule 5(a) of the First Schedule. As held by the Supreme Court in the case 01 Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd. vs CIT, West Bengal (1959)37 ITR 66:(SC), spending in the sense paying out or away of money is the primary meaning of expenditure. Expenditure is what is paid our or away and is something which is gone irretrievably Expenditure, which is deductible for income tax, is one which is towards a liability actually existing at the time, but the putting aside of money which may become expend…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Telesonic Network Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2554/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2554/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit Vs M/S Telesonic Network Ltd. Circle -4 (1) (Known As M/S Alcatel Lucent Gurgaon Network Management Services India), C-Wing, Airtel Centre, Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar , Phase – Iv, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca8010G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:27.01.20 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,10,09,192/- in spite of the fact that the assessee has gone against 2 Telesonic Network Ltd. the settled law as laid down in the case of ‘Sree Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [1985/56I TR 585(SC)] and Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC), and has treated a contingent liability as deductible, which clearly amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as this led to suppression of returned income.” 3. The assessment in this case has been completed by making the following: • Disallowance of the provision for fine and penalty debited by the assessee to P&L A/c and t…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 14ASection 43D

…accounting on the ground of diminished hope of recovery. Furthermore, any liability de futuro is not an ascertained liability in praesenti and cannot be allowed as deduction under the Income-tax Act as held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) and Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom) 366(Bom). Hence, no such ad hoc deduction could be allowed against the amount receivable on redemption of securities which had matured and become due for payment before the close of the accounting year. This ground therefore fails. " 39. The findings of the CIT(A) is based the on the v…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Projects Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, ITA Nos.4960/Del/2015 and 2595/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed and ITA

ITA 5135/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dlf Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Dlf Projects Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, Ca Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &

Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DLF Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.CIT, 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. DLF Projects Ltd., 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

Dlf Projects Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA Nos.4960/Del/2015 and 2595/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed and ITA

ITA 4960/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &

Section 32

ACIT - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5116/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. – 3(2)(2) V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Room No. 674, 6Th Floor New India Building, 87 M.G. Road, Fort Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacn4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farookh Irani Department By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

For Appellant: Shri Farookh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T. – 3(2)(2) v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Room No. 674, 6th Floor New India Building, 87 M.G. Road, Fort Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACN4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Farookh Irani Department by : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar Date of Hearing : 22.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the…

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 263Section 271

…from the profits of the current year which is not accepted on any principal ol law or accountancy. The same view was echoed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shree Sajjan Mill Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 156 ITR 5S5 and Indian Mollasses Co (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 37 ITR 66, wherein it was clearly held that contingent liabilities do not constitute expenditure and cannot be the subject matter of deduction even under the Mercantile System of accounting. Expenditure which is deductible (or Income lax purposes is towards a liability actually existing al the time hut setting apart money which might become expenditure on th…

M/S. Trust Marketing, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 27(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘A’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 742/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17. cuke M/s. Trust Marketing, The ACIT, Vs. CC-207, Gole Market, Circle-6, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAEFT 4933 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Meht…

Shri Giriraj Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 68

…n adhoc disallowance which is partly sustained by the ld. CIT (A) without giving a finding that the claim of expenditure is either excessive or bogus. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 37 ITR 66 (SC) as well as in case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1 (SC). 14. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim by producing the supporting evidence. Therefore, the 10% disallowance restricted by the ld. CIT (A) is just and proper.…

Shri Giriraj Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hearing Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 68

Integral Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1075/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (ACIT)

Section 145Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…y contingent liability and not the crystallized one i.e. not the ascertained liabilities. Further, the ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the following decisions as under:- • Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 156 ITR 585. • Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66. • Rajasthan State mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT (Raj) 208 ITR 1010. • T.N. Small Industries Dev. Corpn vs.CIT (Mad) 242 ITR 122. • CIT Vs pallaavan Transport Corporation Limited (Mad) 230 ITR 288. • CIT vs. Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. (Mad) 324 ITR 71. Hence, the findings of the Assessing were confirmed. Against the said findings, the…

M/S Qliktech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1140/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2013-14 M/S. Qliktech India Private Limited, The Deputy The Millennia, No. 1 & 2, 4Th Commissioner Of Income Floor, A Wing, Vs. Tax, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Circle – 5 (1) (1), Bangalore – 560 008. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacq2405N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri C. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri C. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…an actual outflow of such funds from the Company. Accordingly, by no stretch of imagination can such expenditure be held as imaginary or fictitious in nature. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66. The Hon'ble Apex court in the aforementioned case, while dealing with the allowability of expenditure u/s.10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whatever be the nature of the expenditure, the primary basis for deductibility of the same should be setting aside or "paying out" of such amount towards an actu…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Exide Industries Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1378/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1(1), M/S Exide Industries Ltd. बनाम P-7, Chowringhee Exide House, 59E, / Square, R.No.20, V/S. Chowringhee Road, 7Th Floor, Kolkta-69 Kolkata-700 020 [Pan No.Aaace 6641 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri C.J.Singh,Jcit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A. Sinha, Aca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 24-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2002-03 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.03.2017 Passed In Case No.123/Cit(A)-22/02-0310-11/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 251 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue Pleads The Following Substantive Grounds In Its Instant Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting Rs.3.85 Crores Routed Through P&L A/C Under The Head Dealers Incentive Disregarding The Fact That The Assessing Officer'S Addition Has Been Based On Discrepancies, Crystal Clear As It Looks, In Terms Of The Supporting Credit Notes Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2.04 Crores Routed Through Balance Sheet On Account Of Dealers Incentive – This Is The Area Of Contention Because The

Section 143(3)

…ssessee by disallowing ITA No.1378/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2002-03 DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kol.. Vs M/s Exide Industries Ltd. Page 3 the amount of Rs.3,85,00,000/-, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses –Vs- CIT reported in 37 ITR 66 which has been allowed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the total disallowance after the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stands at Rs.5,89,21,638/-. The grounds on which the entire dealers’ incentive was disallowed by the Ld. CIT(A) are as under : “(i) The entire amount of dealer’s incentive claimed by the assessee lacks the characteristics of the term ‘exp…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ler understanding, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Page 14 of 39 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-5705 & 6151/Del/2014. (AM) (JM) Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) in which it was held: “Income tax law makes a distinction between the actual liability in Praesenti and a liability de futuro which for the time being, is only contingent. The former is deduction, but not the later. … a liability, not actually present but only contingent cannot bear the character of expense till the liability becomes real.”…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

S.Arjun, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 20(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

Section 36(2)

…t before us was that the word " expenditure" in section 37(1) connotes " what is paid out" and that which has gone irretrievably. In this connection, heavy reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Indian Molasses Company P. Ltd. [1959] 37 ITR 66 . Relying on the said judgment, it was sought to be argued that the increase in liability at any point of time prior to the date of payment cannot be said to have gone irretrievably as it can always come back. According to the learned counsel, in the case of increase in liability due to foreign exchange fluctuations, if there is a revaluation of th…