Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…ery. Furthermore, any liability de 11stopp 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 229 ITR 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 various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well Jurisdiction…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…ery. Furthermore, any liability de 11stopp 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 229 ITR 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 various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well Jurisdiction…

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

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

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

…lied on the decision he Ld. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard Mills Co. of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer further relied n the Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Everest Industries Ltd. 20 ITA No. 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Century Enka Century Enka…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

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

…lied on the decision he Ld. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard Mills Co. of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer further relied n the Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Pvt. Ltd. 229 ITR 366. The Ld. Assessing Officer furthe Everest Industries Ltd. 20 ITA No. 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 1421 & 717/Mum/2020 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Century Enka Century Enka…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…very. Furthermore, any liability de 11stopp 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 229 ITR 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 various decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well Jurisdiction…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…very. Furthermore, any liability de 11stopp 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 229 ITR 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 various decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well Jurisdiction…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…tax Act as held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Molasses Co. Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) and Standard Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom) CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom). Hence, no such ad hoc deduction could be allowed against the amount receivable on redemption of securities which had matured and become 16 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India 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 th…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…tax Act as held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Molasses Co. Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) and Standard Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom) CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom). Hence, no such ad hoc deduction could be allowed against the amount receivable on redemption of securities which had matured and become 16 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India 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 th…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…and cannot be allowed as deduction under the Income-tax Act as held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Molasses Co. Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) and Standard Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom) CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom). Hence, no such ad hoc deduction could be allowed against the amount receivable on redemption of close of the accounting year. This ground therefore fails.” 39.The findings of the CIT(A) is based the on the various decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well Jurisdiction High Court. No…

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

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: -

…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 various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well Jur…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…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 various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well Juri…

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…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 various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well Juri…

DCIT (OSD) 8(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN DORR OLIVER LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri. D.T. Garasia & Ashwani Taneja

…payment of tax on liability created year after year and it is incorrect to say that the liability starts as soon as the sales is made. The Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard Mills Co.Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 366 and the Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the Assessee and the Assessing Officer was of a view that in assessment year 1985-86 the appeal was allowed but it was not accepted by the department and same cannot be accepted as each assessment year is an independent unit for assessment and the principle of sub-judice does not apply…

DCIT (OSD) 8(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN DORR OLIVER LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri. D.T. Garasia & Ashwani Taneja

…payment of tax on liability created year after year and it is incorrect to say that the liability starts as soon as the sales is made. The Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Standard Mills Co.Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 366 and the Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the Assessee and the Assessing Officer was of a view that in assessment year 1985-86 the appeal was allowed but it was not accepted by the department and same cannot be accepted as each assessment year is an independent unit for assessment and the principle of sub-judice does not apply…

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT. SPL. RG. - 27, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank Of India Addl. Cit- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aaacs 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee By:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :02.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: Challenging The Orders Dated 24.3.2005 & 28.3.2005 The Asssessee Has Filed The Appeals For Above Mentioned Two Ay.S Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal. It Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Of Appeal For The Ay 1997-98.Assessee,A Public Sector Bank Is Engaged In The Business Of Banking.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Income Etc., For Both The Years Can Be Summarised As Under : A.Y. Roi Filed Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders On Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Of Cit(A) 1997-98 28.11.1997 2086,56,04,580/- 27.03.2000 2433,18,77,427/- 24.3.2005 1998-99 30.11.1998 2816,41,01,920/- 14.02.2001 3558,87,03,620/- 28.3.2005

…and cannot be allowed as deduction under the Income-tax Act as held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Molasses Co. Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) and Standard Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT 229 ITR 366(Bom) CIT 229 ITR 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 various decision…