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 366,470 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

DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. the Orissa State Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 319/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. The Orissa State Co The Orissa State Co-Op.Milk Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Producers Federation Ltd., Producers Federation Ltd., D-2, 2, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 3220 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 31.5.2017 In Appeal No In Appeal No.0251/2015-16 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 43B

…s receipts for the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability. The liability is not a contingent liability. The High Court was not right in taking the view to the contrary. ‘In Metal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 the appellant company estimated its liability under two 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 made provision for such liability not all at once but spread over a number of years. The…

PCIT, Delhi-7 vs. Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd

ITA/264/2022HC Delhi29 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

…he 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. In Metal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 the appellant company estimated its liability under This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003617 ITA 264/2022 Page 8 of 11 two 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 v…

Lotus Labs P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Banglore (Present Incharge Mumbai)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1820/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 37

…t 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. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC), the appellant-company estimated its liability under two gratuity schemes framed by the company and the amount of liability was deducted from the gross receipts in the profit and loss account. The company had worked out on an actuarial valuation its estimated liability and made provision for such liability not all at once but spread over a num…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 156/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80I

…zed after tariff finalization. 21. There is authority, in the form of Supreme Court judgments in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 and Metal Box Company of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1969) 73 ITR 53, that a provision made on a reasonable basis, it would be in the nature of an ascertained liability and that in a mercantile system of accounting, provision for liability ascertained during the course of the relevant accounting period, which is payable at a future is permissible. 22. The expression “error of law” resulting in prejudice to the inte…

Dcir, New Delhi vs. M/S Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5704/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80I

…zed after tariff finalization. 21. There is authority, in the form of Supreme Court judgments in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 and Metal Box Company of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1969) 73 ITR 53, that a provision made on a reasonable basis, it would be in the nature of an ascertained liability and that in a mercantile system of accounting, provision for liability ascertained during the course of the relevant accounting period, which is payable at a future is permissible. 22. The expression “error of law” resulting in prejudice to the inte…

M/S Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Kota

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

ITA 617/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 37(1)

…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.—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.” 7.1.2 In the case of CIT vs. Indian Transformers Ltd. (2004) 192 CTR 0216/270 ITR 0259 (KerHC) (DPB 86-95) Business expenditure—Allowability—Provision for warranty—Both the appellate authorities came to the conclusion that the provision created was towards a definite lia…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

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

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…), CIT vs. Indian Transformers Ltd. (2004) 192 CTR 0216/270 ITR 0259 (KerHC), CIT vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. (20005) 196 CTR 0369/ 278 ITR 0337 (DelHC), Calcutta Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v/s Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC)). 36 ITA246/JP/2015 M/S. ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE VS JCIT, RANGE-2, KOTA 8. No disallowance made in past: 8.1 It is pertinent to note that although the appellant has been making similar claims in the past based on the similarly floated schemes for the encouragement of the students in similar manner & method. Details of some years is an under:…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3348/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Neetika Bansal, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 30Section 32Section 37(1)

…he basis of actuarial valuation and, therefore, in the nature of ascertained liability. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd 73 ITR 53. 10. Submissions of the assessee were duly considered by the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that though the actuarial valuation may be on scientific basis, but this does not make it actual ascertained liability. 10. Dismissing the claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer went on to make addition of Rs. 8,51,24,302/- and Rs. 59…

Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 452/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tification may not be possible then. Its requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. 19. Likewise in case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC), the Apex Court examined the question whether it is legitimate in such a scheme of gratuity, to estimate the liability on an actuarial valuation and deduct the same in profit and loss account while working out the net profit of a company and further whether such appropriation amounts to a reserve or provision. The Supreme Court held that an as…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3194/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…zed after tariff finalization. 21. There is authority, in the form of Supreme Court judgments in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 and Metal Box Company of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1969) 73 ITR 53, that a provision made on a reasonable basis, it would be in the nature of an ascertained liability and that in a mercantile system of accounting, provision for liability ascertained during the course of the relevant accounting period, which is payable at a future is permissible. ITA Nos.2792 & 3194/Del/2016 NTPC Ltd. 22. The expression “error of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3590/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…zed after tariff finalization. 21. There is authority, in the form of Supreme Court judgments in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 and Metal Box Company of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1969) 73 ITR 53, that a provision made on a reasonable basis, it would be in the nature of an ascertained liability and that in a mercantile system of accounting, provision for liability ascertained during the course of the relevant accounting period, which is payable at a future is permissible. ITA Nos.2792 & 3194/Del/2016 NTPC Ltd. 22. The expression “error of…

M/S. Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…zed after tariff finalization. 21. There is authority, in the form of Supreme Court judgments in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 and Metal Box Company of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1969) 73 ITR 53, that a provision made on a reasonable basis, it would be in the nature of an ascertained liability and that in a mercantile system of accounting, provision for liability ascertained during the course of the relevant accounting period, which is payable at a future is permissible. ITA Nos.2792 & 3194/Del/2016 NTPC Ltd. 22. The expression “error of…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. Power System Operation Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4145/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 3112/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Power System Operation Circle-14(1), Vs. Corporation Of India Ltd., Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, B-9, 1St Floor, C.R. Building, Qutab Institutional Area, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafcp2086B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 27(2)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 IGR 428]. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) following the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Limited [73 ITR 53], Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, Protos Engineering I.T.A.Nos.4145/Del/2017, 101/Del/2017, 2718/Del/2016 & 3112/Del/2014 Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [282 ITR 550] and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited [334 ITR 431] deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 43B(b) of the Act. We see no i…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power System Operation Corp. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 101/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 3112/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Power System Operation Circle-14(1), Vs. Corporation Of India Ltd., Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, B-9, 1St Floor, C.R. Building, Qutab Institutional Area, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafcp2086B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 27(2)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 IGR 428]. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) following the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Limited [73 ITR 53], Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, Protos Engineering I.T.A.Nos.4145/Del/2017, 101/Del/2017, 2718/Del/2016 & 3112/Del/2014 Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [282 ITR 550] and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited [334 ITR 431] deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 43B(b) of the Act. We see no i…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power System Operation Corp. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2718/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 3112/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Power System Operation Circle-14(1), Vs. Corporation Of India Ltd., Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, B-9, 1St Floor, C.R. Building, Qutab Institutional Area, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafcp2086B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 27(2)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 IGR 428]. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) following the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Limited [73 ITR 53], Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, Protos Engineering I.T.A.Nos.4145/Del/2017, 101/Del/2017, 2718/Del/2016 & 3112/Del/2014 Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [282 ITR 550] and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited [334 ITR 431] deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 43B(b) of the Act. We see no i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Power System Operation Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3112/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 3112/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Power System Operation Circle-14(1), Vs. Corporation Of India Ltd., Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, B-9, 1St Floor, C.R. Building, Qutab Institutional Area, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafcp2086B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 27(2)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 IGR 428]. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we observe that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) following the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Limited [73 ITR 53], Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, Protos Engineering I.T.A.Nos.4145/Del/2017, 101/Del/2017, 2718/Del/2016 & 3112/Del/2014 Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [282 ITR 550] and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited [334 ITR 431] deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 43B(b) of the Act. We see no i…

Indian Tools Technology Centre, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward II(1), Jalandhar

ITA 234/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 25Section 57

…t of view of equity, this adjustment can’t be made unless the law specifically permits such adjustment. 7.3 The Ld. Counsel further argued regarding no real income to the assessee by referring to the case of M/s Metal Box Company Ltd Vs. Their Workman (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) delivered in the context of Section 37(1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that just as receipts, though not actual receipts but accrued due are brought in for Income Tax Assessment, so also liabilities accrued due would be taken into account while working out the profits and gains of the business. It is 11 noticed that this decision was in…

Helti India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 502/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Helti India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 6Th Floor, Building 8, Tower C, Special Range-4, Dlf Cyber City, Phase 3, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaach3583Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…. 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 Company of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 the appellant company estimated its liability under two 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 made provision for such liability not all at once but spread over a number of years. The…

Podar Education Sports Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals for AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 66/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Dhanlakshmi Bank (supra) on merits is not applicable here as in that case assessee has not made provision on the basis of actuarial valuation. Further, it was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Metal box company of India Ltd. Vs their workmen 73 ITR 53 has held that provision of gratuity on a scientific basis in the form of actuarial valuation carried out every year could be considered to represented as real liability of the employer to the employees. She further refer to several case laws. 18. Upon careful consideration, we note that the first challenge in this regard is that the addition in as…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Akzo Noble India Ltd

ITAT/151/2017HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260ASection 50

…nsel assisted by Mr. Mazumder for the respondent/assessee. 3 So far as substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the Tribunal rightly took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 SC which was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 SC. Therefore, we find there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, question Nos. 1 and 2 are decided against the Revenue. In so far as substantial question of law No. 3 is concerned, in assessee’s own case in ITAT 31 of 2018 dated…