How many judgments cite Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

654 judgments on BharatTax cite Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (82 ITR 363), spanning 1998 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 37(1), Section 43B, Section 14A, Section 115JB.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

82 ITR 363Supreme Court of India1971#89 most cited

What is Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

654

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 1998 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 82 ITR 363 SC · tax liability · accounting entries · books of account · Income-tax Act provisions · tax law vs accounting · section 145 · mercantile system · book profits · section 115JB · section 37(1) · section 43B

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 37(1)Section 43B Section 14A Section 115JB Section 143(1)Section 145

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc section 80hh book profits revenue expenditure section 80ia mercantile system of accounting capital expenditure section 115j section 80i disallowance under section 14a section 37(1)section 115jb

Judgments citing Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1509/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit –Cc-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. 63 Moon Room No. 656 6Th Floor, Technologies India Ltd Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ft Tower, Cts No. 256- Mumbai- 400020. 257, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5737C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact He Proportionate Claim Of The Premium On Zccbs Written During The Tenure Of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds Was Is In Nature Of Interest?" 1.1 “Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting Disallowance Without Appreciating The Fact That The Claim

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 14A

…o be made as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and accounting treatment is not sacrosanct. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases that entries in books of accounts are no; determinative of its tax treatment: * Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363(SC) * Godhra Electricity 225 ITR 746(SC) * Bokara Steel 236 ITR 315(SC) * United Commercial Bank 240 ITR 355(SC) The assessee submits that adopting differing treatment in books of accounts and Income Tax Return cannot be equated with shifting stand. The assessee respectfully submits that it has not shifted its stand. What the assessee has done is…

Lifecell International Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

…duction. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that entries in the books of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin :-27-: ITA. No:3334/Chny/2019 Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread ov…

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6th floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAACH 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, CIT-DR/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, DR Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AR : Date of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 28/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by th…

M/S Subex Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Appeal is allowed

ITA/787/2017HC Karnataka22 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 260Section 92

…he bills/invoices by the payees, the matter has to be analysed having regard to, whether income has accrued to the payees to deduct tax at source.” 15 Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) 16 ITA No. 369/2018, para 10 I.T.A No.787/2017 11 12. We may record that it was argued by Shri. Chaithnaya that assessee had deducted tax at source in subsequent year in accordance with the provisi…

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Puna vs. The ACIT-1(1), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 144CSection 43(1)Section 92C

…opined that subsidy received by assessee under PSI, 2007 is of capital nature and hence non-taxable. The Ld. A.R. relied upon following decision: (i) CIT vs. Ponny Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxmann 87 (SC) (ii) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 (iii) ACIT vs. Mahindra Vehicles Manufactures ltd. (ITA No. 6919&6920/Mum/2016) (iv) Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 215/PN/2014) (v) Bhagyalaxmi Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT No. 3428/Mum/2016) The Ld. A.R. also filed PSI, 2007 of Government of Maharashtra, MOU it entered with Government of Maharashtra & Eligibility Certif…

DCIT, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Vinodchandra Shanabhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed subject to the direction

ITA 1597/AHD/2017[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1597/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Shri Vinodchandra Shanabhai Patel, Circle-3(2), Vs. 28, Nirant Park, Ahmedabad. Opp. Sun & Step Club Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061. Pan: Afepp6977J

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satish Solanki Sr. D.R

Section 133A

…d, "it is duty of A.O. to correctly deduce the income, no principle of estoppels, A.O. is not bound by the method followed in earlier years." It is held in the case of Kedarnath Jute manufacturing co.ltd. that "what is necessary is the true nature of income"- 82 ITR 363(SC). In view of facts and ratio laid down in the case laws (Supra), I am inclined to accept the contention of the Appellant. Accordingly, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,92,78,814/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The ld. DR before us besides vehemently s…

Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafana vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

…detailed order (pg. 7-18) stands made to s.5 r/w s. 145; the assessee referring to s.145 and abundant case-law toward the law in the matter, viz. Rakesh Shantilal Mardia v. Dy. CIT [2012] 210 Taxman 565 (SC) Kedarnath jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC) Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC) Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC) J&K industries Ltd. [2007] 13 Scale 204 (SC) CIT v. Kerala Financial Corporation Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 246 (Ker.) 7 | P a g e ITA Nos. 175 &176/JAB/2016 (A.Yrs. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafna v. Addl. CIT P. Mariappa Gounder v.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -Satna, Satna vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement East Limited, (Formerly Known As Bokaro Jaypee Cement Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 223/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

Section 254(1)

…with the words ‘It is trite law that…..’ 4. Para 5.4 (pg.10): a) The words ‘(refer para 5.1)’ be read after the word ‘law’ in the first sentence. b) The words ‘Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra)’ be substituted by ‘Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971 82 ITR 363 (SC)’ 5. Para 5.5: a) A comma (,) be read before the word ‘on’ instead of after it, in the sentence beginning with the words ‘And which shall be….’ (pg.11) b) The word ‘Hon'ble’ be read before the words ‘Apex Court’ in the following sentence, beginning with the words ‘Why, even in the various decisions….’ (pg. 11) 6. Para 6.3 (pg.13): The word ‘fo…

M/S. Dalmia Cement East Limited, (Formerly Known As Bokaro Jaypee Cement Ltd.), New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -Satna, Satna

ITA 193/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

Section 254(1)

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s delivered by the rail system. In support of its contention that treatment of a transaction in books of accounts cannot govern the tax statement reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. 82 ITR 362; in the case of Tutcorin Alali Chemicals ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 54 of 99 Ltd. in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Company in 91 Taxman 91; in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlet Cotton Mills Ltd. in 116…

Shree Vimaljin Religious Charitable Trust, Vapi vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 239/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 239/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Vimaljin Religious Charitable Trust, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 102, Shantinath Apartment, Nehru Street, Bangaluru. Vapi-396191. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalts6046F

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 2(15)

…T(2008) reported in 297 ITR 1(SC). It is the correct legal position that is relevant and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [Refer to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) and CIT vs C Parikh & co (India) Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC)]. 7.3 In view of the above facts and respectfully following the judgments outlined in para 7.2 of this order, it is held that the Assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act on account of non-registration u/s 12AA of the Act. On this issue, there is no ambivalence in law…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jath Wind Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit,Circle-2(1) Vs. Jath Wind Energy Private Room No.514 Limited 5Th Floor 8-2-684/A, Nsl Icon, Signature Towers 4Th Floor, Road No.12, Kondapur-500 084 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri Aliasager RampurawalaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT,Circle-2(1) Vs. Jath Wind Energy Private Room No.514 Limited 5th Floor 8-2-684/A, NSL Icon, Signature Towers 4th Floor, Road No.12, Kondapur-500 084 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034 PAN : AADCJ1913D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Aliasager Rampurawala, CA and Shri Pratik Shah,CA Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR Date of hearing: 13.10.2022 Date of pronouncement: 18.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…s are not determinative and conclusive for the purpose of determining the tax liability of a person. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following celebrated decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court:- a) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 363 (SC) b) Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs CIT reported in 227 ITR 172 (SC) c) Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC) 2.8. The ld. DR before us referred to Clauses 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.9, 7.14, 7.16, 7.21, 7.22, 7.23, 8, 9.5, 16, 23.1 & 24.1 of the distributors agreement to drive home the point that the relationship betwe…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jabalpur vs. Smt. Sheela Rani Jain, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…pple against law. It is, accordingly, the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The Tribunal is the final fact-finding body under the Act, and is to, accordingly, deal with and determine questions which arise out of the subject-matter of the appeal in the light of the evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case (CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC)). The Tribunal is, thus, in deciding an a…

Shrimati Nandini Sharma, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

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

ITA 148/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A. and Sh. V.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

…not lose its right of claiming or would not be debarred from being allowed that deduction which otherwise is allowable as per the provisions of law. The AR relied upon the judgement of Kedar Nath Jute manufacturing company Ltd. Vs Commissioner of income tax 82 ITR 363 in which it has been held that entries in the books of accounts cannot decide whether the expenses are allowable or not. The AR further placed reliance upon a number of case laws for the proposition that due to lack of knowledge of accounts, entry made under the wrong head cannot be used for making addition. 15. The AR also referred to the audi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra, Jaipur

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 305/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA), &For Respondent: Shri P. R Meena (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 165Section 40

…t is not material and relevant how the assessee treated these expenses in its books of accounts but what is material and relevant is the exact nature of the transaction. This issue was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co. Ltd [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC). In this case the tax authorities and the Hon’ble ITAT, denied the deduction of the sales tax liability to the taxpayer contending that the taxpayer denied its liability to pay the sales tax and also, had not made a provision in its books of account for the said liability. Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the claim of the assessee and held that “….…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…doctrine. If an item is taxable same would be taxable irrespective of what the assessee may say or may not say. In this regard, reliance is placed by the Ld. A.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co Ltd vs CIT - 82 ITR 363 and CIT vs V.MR.P.Firm - 56 ITR 67. Hence the disallowance may be deleted. 48. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Ld. DRP and submitted that if the obsolete stock is written off in the books at Nil considering the nature of stock and its valuation, then the same may be allowed as expenditure during the year. However, if a prov…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

International Travel House Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-12(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8423/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 37(1)Section 40

…are not determinative of the ambit of taxation. If an item of income/expense is taxable/ deductible, the same has to be taken into account as per the provisions of the Act irrespective of the book entries [Refer: Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company v.v. CIT: 82 ITR 363 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT: 116ITR 1 (SC), Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. P. Ltd.: 239 ITR 505 (SC), CIT vs. U. P. Electronics Corporation Limited: 282 ITR 470 (All HC), Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT: ITA 3241 & 6525/Del/2014 (Del Trib.)] (ii) The assessing officer has alleged that ITC Ltd recognizes the cost of ESOP as capital contrib…