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

ITO -6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamanwala Housing Construction Ltd., Mumba

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1678/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

For Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar
Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…matching principle of accountancy, i.e. direct expenses relating to the sales should be debited in the period when the corresponding sales are credited to the accounts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. Vs Their Workmen (1969)(73 ITR 53)(SC) has held that in the case of an assessee maintain 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 and accountancy. It is not as if such d…

DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon vs. Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5037/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 43(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3310/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Orient Craft Ltd., C/O vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, RRA Tax India D-28, Gurgaon. South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACO0068M (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.5037/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 DCIT, Central Circle-II, Orient Craft Ltd., Gurgaon. vs. C/O RRA Tax India D-28, South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACO0068M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Ms…

Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon

ITA 3313/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 43(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3310/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Orient Craft Ltd., C/O vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, RRA Tax India D-28, Gurgaon. South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACO0068M (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.5037/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 DCIT, Central Circle-II, Orient Craft Ltd., Gurgaon. vs. C/O RRA Tax India D-28, South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACO0068M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Ms…

Orient Craft Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -II, Gurgaon

ITA 3310/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 43(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3310/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Orient Craft Ltd., C/O vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, RRA Tax India D-28, Gurgaon. South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACO0068M (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.5037/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 DCIT, Central Circle-II, Orient Craft Ltd., Gurgaon. vs. C/O RRA Tax India D-28, South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACO0068M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Ms…

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Shri K. N. Charya.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. K. S. V. R. Krishna, CA
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154

…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. The above principle was also followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. Vs Their workmen [73 ITR 53] and Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [37 ITR 1 ]. In view of the above factual and legal position as the liability determined as per RBI circular are definite and ascertained liability, therefore, allowable under the provisions of the Act. As such this ground is decided in favour of the appellant." The ground is exactly the same and the facts and circu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…on the date of drawing the accounts has to be accounted for and are legally allowable, following judgments are relied upon: a. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2004) 245 ITR 428 (SC). b. Metal Box Company of India Ltd. V. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). c. Calcutta Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC). d. CIT V. Insilco Ltd. 179 Taxman 5 (Delhi) 18. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the basis of computation of loss which was furnished. Similarly, other details as required by the AO in respect of total salable area, total area actually sold and agreed sales r…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…on the date of drawing the accounts has to be accounted for and are legally allowable, following judgments are relied upon: a. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2004) 245 ITR 428 (SC). b. Metal Box Company of India Ltd. V. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). c. Calcutta Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC). d. CIT V. Insilco Ltd. 179 Taxman 5 (Delhi) 18. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the basis of computation of loss which was furnished. Similarly, other details as required by the AO in respect of total salable area, total area actually sold and agreed sales r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5776/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…on the date of drawing the accounts has to be accounted for and are legally allowable, following judgments are relied upon: a. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2004) 245 ITR 428 (SC). b. Metal Box Company of India Ltd. V. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). c. Calcutta Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC). d. CIT V. Insilco Ltd. 179 Taxman 5 (Delhi) 18. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the basis of computation of loss which was furnished. Similarly, other details as required by the AO in respect of total salable area, total area actually sold and agreed sales r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1349/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…on the date of drawing the accounts has to be accounted for and are legally allowable, following judgments are relied upon: a. Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2004) 245 ITR 428 (SC). b. Metal Box Company of India Ltd. V. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). c. Calcutta Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC). d. CIT V. Insilco Ltd. 179 Taxman 5 (Delhi) 18. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the basis of computation of loss which was furnished. Similarly, other details as required by the AO in respect of total salable area, total area actually sold and agreed sales r…

Apeejay Education Trust, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T.(Exemption), Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)

…nn 61 though it refers to the case of a company in respect of deduction of provision for gratuity under the head ‘business and profession’, however, the principle can be seen extracted in that order in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Their workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “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…

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1593/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)

…ovided that the company will build up a Major Maintenance Reserve. 2. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 ITR 428 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to principles were laid down in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. Vs. their Workmen [73 ITR 53 (SC)]. Hon’ble Court had extracted and reproduced some relevant principles 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 3/5 pr…

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1592/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)

…ovided that the company will build up a Major Maintenance Reserve. 2. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 ITR 428 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to principles were laid down in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. Vs. their Workmen [73 ITR 53 (SC)]. Hon’ble Court had extracted and reproduced some relevant principles 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 3/5 pr…

Atos India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, RG. 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 865/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 7592/मुं/2014 ("न. व.2010-11) आअसं. 865/मुं/2016 ("न. व. 2011-12) Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Godrej & Boyce Complex, Plat No 5, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaaco 2461J बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-9(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1212/मुं/2016 ("न. व. 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs. Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Godrej & Boyce Complex, Plat No 5, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 Pan: Aaaco 2461J ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna With Shri Arpit Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with Shri Arpit AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)

…nses for the similar reasons. In assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.1778/Mum/2012, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of assessee by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. reported as 245 ITR 425 (SC). In the subsequent assessment years i.e. AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10, the Tribunal has allowed assessee’s claim in similar terms. We find that in the impugned assessment year facts are identical, however, the claim of the assessee has been rejected out rightly by the Assessing Officer without examining the extent of expenses admissible. We dee…

Atos India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7592/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 7592/मुं/2014 ("न. व.2010-11) आअसं. 865/मुं/2016 ("न. व. 2011-12) Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Godrej & Boyce Complex, Plat No 5, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaaco 2461J बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-9(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1212/मुं/2016 ("न. व. 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs. Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Godrej & Boyce Complex, Plat No 5, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 Pan: Aaaco 2461J ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna With Shri Arpit Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with Shri Arpit AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)

…nses for the similar reasons. In assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.1778/Mum/2012, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of assessee by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. reported as 245 ITR 425 (SC). In the subsequent assessment years i.e. AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10, the Tribunal has allowed assessee’s claim in similar terms. We find that in the impugned assessment year facts are identical, however, the claim of the assessee has been rejected out rightly by the Assessing Officer without examining the extent of expenses admissible. We dee…

Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7012/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7012/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 403, Dohil Chambers, 46, Nehru Ward-11(3), Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach2937C Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Bhopal Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 7012/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 403, Dohil Chambers, 46, Nehru Ward-11(3), Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH2937C Assessee by : Sh. S. Krishnan, CA Revenue by : Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 17.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 22.03.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed b…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5211/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Circle-Ii, Faridabad. Nhpc Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacn 0149 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. Acit Nhpc Ltd., Circle – Ii, Nhpc Office Comples, Faridabad 4Th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…f the Delhi High Court held:— "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." We are in respectful agreement with this conclusion based on the jud…

Sr. Manager(Fin)--Tax, Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5106/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Circle-Ii, Faridabad. Nhpc Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacn 0149 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. Acit Nhpc Ltd., Circle – Ii, Nhpc Office Comples, Faridabad 4Th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…f the Delhi High Court held:— "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." We are in respectful agreement with this conclusion based on the jud…

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

…Supreme Court in the case of Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1985] 23 Taxman 37 (SC), wherein it was held as follows: “16. Our attention was drawn to the observations of this Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 at pages 67 and 68 which were reiterated and referred to in the decision of this Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.'s case (supra). In these appeals, we are not concerned with the distinction between 'provision' and 'reserves'. We are concerned with the true meaning and purport of the expression 'provision made by the assessee'. This Court in V…

DCIT, Circle- 18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Electrical Supply Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4684/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Pramita M. Biswa, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Sh. Ashish
Section 60

…an uncertain provision. He placed the reliance of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs CIT (245 ITR 248), CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, 352 ITR 88 (Del), Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) in support of his contention. 6.7 Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld. DR that the legality of the view taken by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) revolves around the question as to the status of the impugned employees - whether they are the legal employees of the assessee or the employees to the assessee by the NTPC. She submits…

M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…sequent year. He placed reliance on computation of total income placed at page 322- 324, in support of this submission. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd., vs.Their Workman reported in (1969) 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers reported in (2000) 112 Taxman 61. 7.12. We have perused these decisions. 7.12.1.Facts in case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd., vs.Their Workma(supra) is that: It was a case where, the appellant-company estimated its liability under two gratuity schemes framed by the company and the amount of liability was deducted from the gr…