Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen

73 ITR 53Supreme Court of India1969#286 most cited

What is Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen authority for?

A provision for gratuity liability, calculated on an actuarial basis and spread over a number of years, is an allowable business expense. Such a provision is considered a charge against profits rather than a reserve.

276

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 1996 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen · 73 ITR 53 · gratuity provision · actuarial valuation · allowable expense · charge against profits · commercial accountancy · provision vs reserve · Section 37(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 40(a)(ia)Section 44Section 147Section 148Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 211section 40a(9)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dsection 32(1)(ii)slump salesection 21domestic company

Judgments citing Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen

M/S. Andritz Hydro Private Limited (Earlier Known As Va Tech Hydro India Private Limited), Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…s relied on the case of Rotork Control (P) India Ltd. 314 ITR 62(SC)/(2009-TIOL-64-SC) but as held in the said case this provision can be allowed if made after scientific method for its quantification. The AO has relied in the case of Metal Box vs. Workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) to contend that contingent liability cannot be allowed as deduction. Further, in CIT vs. Kalinga Tubes 218 ITR 164(SC) it was held that only such expenditure, which accrues in a year under mercantile system of accounting, is allowable only from the profits of that year. Hence, the AO has proposed to disallow the same in draft assessment orde…

DCIT, Port Blair vs. Aniidco

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1124/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Port Blair M.B. V/S. Andaman Nicobar Island 210, Shadipur Port Integrated Development Blair, A & Ni -744 106 Corporation Ltd., Vikas Bhawan, Port Blair, 143/1/1, Cotton Street, Kolkata-700 007 [Pan No.Aacca 4070 B]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 41

…ingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain. 5. In Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Workmen [(1969) 73 ITR 53 : AIR 1969 SC 612] the appellant Company estimated its liability under two ITA No.1124/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Port Blair Vs. ANIIDCO Page 5 gratuity schemes framed by the Company and the amount of liability was deducted from the gross receipts in the P&L account. The Company had worked out on an actuarial valuation its estimated liability and…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. I M C Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…not make any difference if ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page 32 the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.—Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) : TC 16R.197 applied. Provision made by the appellant company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement earned by employees of the company, inclusive of the officers and the staff, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as app…

M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…not make any difference if ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page 32 the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.—Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) : TC 16R.197 applied. Provision made by the appellant company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement earned by employees of the company, inclusive of the officers and the staff, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as app…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 781/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…not make any difference if ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page 32 the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.—Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) : TC 16R.197 applied. Provision made by the appellant company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement earned by employees of the company, inclusive of the officers and the staff, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as app…

Durable Ispat & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 758/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Durable Ispat & Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Pan: Aaics6279A) Kolkata-1, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…information the AO did not consider it necessary to add back such an amount to the income of the assessee and it is one of the probable views that could have been taken by the AO in view of the judgment in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). On this premise, it is further submitted by the Ld. AR that when the AO had taken a probable view by following a binding precedent, invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT does not arise. For this proposition, he placed reliance on a decision reported in CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom). 8. Para no. 6 of the…

ACIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6835/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla: (A.Y : 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastor & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(9)Section 43B

…e difference between arising of the liability of Customs duty and its payment. Before us, the learned representative for the assessee had justifiably placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd., 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers, 245 ITR 428 (SC) to emphasise that the point of arisal of a liability is not the same as the point of time prescribed for its payment. Notably, in the present case, assessee, at the time of obtaining clearance of raw material without payment of duty complied with the conditions prescribed by the Customs Department by f…

M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6165/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Deputy M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., 204, Commissioner Of Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacp0182F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/09/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1.0 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.4.45.076/- U/S.40A(3Ijof The Income-Tax Act, On Wholly Untenable Grounds. 1.1 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Circumstances Under Which The Cash Payment Exceeding The Prescribed Limit U/S.40A(3) Had To Be Made By The Assessee, Although The Payees Were Fully Identified & Even Tds Has Been Made. 1.2 That The Disallowance Made U/S.40A(3) Is Bad In Law.

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Deputy M/s. Pearl Polymers Ltd., 204, Commissioner of Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi PAN : AAACP0182F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CA Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing 24.08.2016 Date of pronouncement 18.11.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23/09/2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. K.P. Sanghvi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S K P Sanghvi & Sons, Income Tax -16(3), Matru 1301, Prasad Chambers, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Operahouse,Mumbai-4 Mumbai-400007 Pan:Aaafk8390F .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Sri R P Meena Respondent By .. Sri K Shivram Date Of Hearing .. 29-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 29 -09- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-27/Ac-16(3)/135/13-14 Dated 22.4.2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Acit- Circle 16(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 28.3.2013 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

…otional nor contingent liability in which the moment binding contract is enacted, it becomes allowable. Further reference could be made to Bharat Earth Movers v, CIT [2000] 245 ITR 4281 112 Taxman 61 (SC), Metal Box Co. of India . Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) .and Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1(SC) 2.4.16 In the case of DCIT vIs Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait(supra), forward contracts were entered of an amount to protect the fluctuations in the foreign currency held as stock-in-trade. Forward contracts value entered by. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait had nothing to do with the foreign currency held a…

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 8458/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07
For Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh

…onceding to AS-2 (‘Valuation of Inventories’, issued by ICAI, New Delhi) being applicable in its case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC); and Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC). We reproduce the relevant part of the tribunal’s order as under: ‘2.11.1 to 2.11.2 …………. 2.11.3 A careful perusal of the Accounting Standards AS-1 & AS-2 notified above shows that these are only regarding disclosure of accounting policies and disclosure of prior period expenses and ext…

SHI vs. Hahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 8251/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh

…onceding to AS-2 (‘Valuation of Inventories’, issued by ICAI, New Delhi) being applicable in its case. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC); and Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC). We reproduce the relevant part of the tribunal’s order as under: ‘2.11.1 to 2.11.2 …………. 2.11.3 A careful perusal of the Accounting Standards AS-1 & AS-2 notified above shows that these are only regarding disclosure of accounting policies and disclosure of prior period expenses and ext…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…ant accounting year is an allowable deduction even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date: a) Assessee’s own case decided in favour by CIT (A) for AY 2003-04 b) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 (SC) c) Metal Box (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) d) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) e) Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC). f) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 g) CIT v. Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd. : 278 ITR 337 (Del.) h) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) 26.3.9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

Ge Capital Services India vs. Addl CIT Range 2

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2898/DEL/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…was wrongly upset by the ITAT. 19.2. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgements namely (a) Jasjeet Films P.Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 165 Taxman 599 (Delhi); (b) Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. vs Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC); (c )Asstt. CIT vs Shree Synthetics Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 106 (MP); (d) E.D.Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27; and (e) Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 relied upon Page 33 of 40 I.T.A .No.-2808 & 2898/Del/2007 these accepting the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee namely that the Revenue has not appreciated the n…

DCIT Circle 12 (1) vs. G.E. Capital Services India

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2808/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…was wrongly upset by the ITAT. 19.2. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgements namely (a) Jasjeet Films P.Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 165 Taxman 599 (Delhi); (b) Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. vs Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC); (c )Asstt. CIT vs Shree Synthetics Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 106 (MP); (d) E.D.Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27; and (e) Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 relied upon Page 33 of 40 I.T.A .No.-2808 & 2898/Del/2007 these accepting the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee namely that the Revenue has not appreciated the n…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3947/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…94.46 lacs. 4.2.2 Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue at page 52, para 7.4 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 37 ITR 01, Metal Block Co. of India Ltd. Vs their workmen reported in 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earthmovers Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 428, wherein it has been held that the 15 I.T.A.Nos.3947,3048,3949/Del/2013 I.T.A.Nos.3517-3520/Del/2013 liability being determined one, though to be discharged in future, did not make it a contingent liability and is allowable. He further noted that the principle enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in th…

M/S National Fertilizer Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3520/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…94.46 lacs. 4.2.2 Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue at page 52, para 7.4 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 37 ITR 01, Metal Block Co. of India Ltd. Vs their workmen reported in 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earthmovers Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 428, wherein it has been held that the 15 I.T.A.Nos.3947,3048,3949/Del/2013 I.T.A.Nos.3517-3520/Del/2013 liability being determined one, though to be discharged in future, did not make it a contingent liability and is allowable. He further noted that the principle enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in th…

Sulzer India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7324/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7324/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sulzer India Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gate No. 304, Income Tax – 8(3), V. Kondhapuri, Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, Tal- Shirur, Aayakar Bhavan, Dist. Pune – 412 209. M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs 7876D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234B

…ade on a ‘best estimate’ basis for services availed although invoices / debit notes have not been received by the year end. The assessee company relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their workmen, 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC). The assessee company also submitted that the learned CIT(A) has allowed the ground in the assessment year 2007-08. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that if provisions of Rs.11,15,000/- made for legal and professional fee are disallowed in the impugned assessment year, th…

Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T. 14(1), Vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd., Mumbai. (Formerly M/S. Proagro Seed Co. P. Ltd. ), Bayer House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai.[Pan: Aaacp 3459M]

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

…held that the provisions has been made on reasonable basis (refer para 11 of the order). • Further, assessee wishes to place reliance on the following rulings - Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (245 ITR 428) (SC) - Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs Their Workmen (73 ITR 53) (SC) - Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs CIT (37 ITR 1) (SC) - Rotork Controls India Private Limited vs CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC) - CIT vs Vintec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (278 ITR 337) [Delhi HC] • Without prejudice to the above submission, in case your honour considers to not allow the expense for special discount in the relevant year under consideration (i.e. FY 20…

Vasant J, Khetani, Mumbai vs. JCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 3340/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3340/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Mr. Vasant J. Khetani, Joint Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255/16, Kamla Sadan, Income Tax-17(3), V. Prof. U.U. Bhatt Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Matunga, Road,Mumbai. Mumbai 400 019. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpk 4366M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar- (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

…llurgical Corporation, (1964) 51 ITR 240 (Mad) and Sirsa Industries v. CIT (1989) 1781TR 437 (P & H), Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC), Addl. CIT v. T Nagireddy & Co. (1976) 105 ITR 669 (AP) and Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). The A.O. observed that there is a dispute between BMC and the assessee regarding payment of certain dues and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble jursidictional High Court. In the meanwhile, assessee made a provision for transfer fee payable to BMC @ 10% of agreement value , as against earlier transfer fee rate of 7% of agreement value an…

Aggarwal & Modi Enterpises Co vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/1123/2007HC Delhi21 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.” 44. The Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) in which inter alia it was explained as under: “(i) For an assessee maintaining his accounts on mercantile system, a liability already accrued, though to be discharged at a future date, would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of his business, regard being had to the accepted principles of commercial practice a…