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. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 8/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…issue as whether ‘retirement benefit for employees’ is to be added to book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act and followed the appeal order of his predecessor where the decisions of Apex Court in case of Metal Box Co. Of India Vs Their Workmen 73 ITR 53(SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd Vs CIT 245 ITR 428(SC) were followed. The ld CIT(A) directed the ld AO to verify the actual sums debited to P &L account based on actuarial valuation and to consider the amount as ascertained liability. He also stated that the Assessing Officer would re-compute the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in accordance with…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 7/GTY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…issue as whether ‘retirement benefit for employees’ is to be added to book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act and followed the appeal order of his predecessor where the decisions of Apex Court in case of Metal Box Co. Of India Vs Their Workmen 73 ITR 53(SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd Vs CIT 245 ITR 428(SC) were followed. The ld CIT(A) directed the ld AO to verify the actual sums debited to P &L account based on actuarial valuation and to consider the amount as ascertained liability. He also stated that the Assessing Officer would re-compute the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in accordance with…

M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 5/GTY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

…issue as whether ‘retirement benefit for employees’ is to be added to book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act and followed the appeal order of his predecessor where the decisions of Apex Court in case of Metal Box Co. Of India Vs Their Workmen 73 ITR 53(SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd Vs CIT 245 ITR 428(SC) were followed. The ld CIT(A) directed the ld AO to verify the actual sums debited to P &L account based on actuarial valuation and to consider the amount as ascertained liability. He also stated that the Assessing Officer would re-compute the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in accordance with…

Addl CIT -- 10(1), Mumbai vs. Agc Network Ltd ( Formerly Known As Avaya Global Connect Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…s, the provision for expenditure cannot be treated as contingent liability. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Bharat Earth Movers v/s CIT, [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC); ii) Metal Box of India Ltd. v/s Their Workmen, [1972] 73 ITR 53 (SC); iii) Calcutta Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1959] 37 ITR 001 (SC); and iv) Rotork Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC). 8. Drawing our attention to the details furnished in the paper book, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, there are several 11 AGC Network Ltd. (Formerly known as Avaya Global Connect Ltd.) heads of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F Co No.217/Del/2011 (Ita No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Also Filed Co No.217/Del/2011 Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 80HSection 90C

…CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is made to an unapproved gratuity fund, it has to be allowed under sec. 37. By respectfully following the binding…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1729, 2145 & 2146/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16) M/s. Mokama Munger Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Highway Ltd Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16(2) PAN: AAGCM5878F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR Date of Hearing: 16.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P.…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1729, 2145 & 2146/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16) M/s. Mokama Munger Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Highway Ltd Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16(2) PAN: AAGCM5878F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR Date of Hearing: 16.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P.…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1729, 2145 & 2146/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16) M/s. Mokama Munger Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Highway Ltd Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16(2) PAN: AAGCM5878F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR Date of Hearing: 16.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P.…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 115/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ability. The liability was not a contingent liability. The High Court was not right in taking a view to the contrary. " 4.8 In this judgment the Supreme Court had relied on its earlier judgment in the case of Metal Box Company of India l.td vs Their Workmen (73 ITR 53). From these judgments it is evident that the Supreme Court in principle accepted that liability of a company payable at future unspecified date In relation to employee benefits can be allowed in the years in which the employees render the relevant services. The Supreme Court however observed that the liability can be allowed as a deduction if it c…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 114/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ability. The liability was not a contingent liability. The High Court was not right in taking a view to the contrary. " 4.8 In this judgment the Supreme Court had relied on its earlier judgment in the case of Metal Box Company of India l.td vs Their Workmen (73 ITR 53). From these judgments it is evident that the Supreme Court in principle accepted that liability of a company payable at future unspecified date In relation to employee benefits can be allowed in the years in which the employees render the relevant services. The Supreme Court however observed that the liability can be allowed as a deduction if it c…

Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward II(4), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 119/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR
Section 43B

…nclosed at Page 34 of paper book). In addition to above, to buttress its point, the assessee also placed heavy reliance on following judicial authorities: i) Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428(SC) ii) Metal Box Company Ltd., Vs Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53(SC) iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605(SC) iv) CIT Vs Modern Spinners Ltd., (2016) 382 ITR 472 (Del) v) Taparia Toos Ltd., Vs Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC). But the Id.CIT(A), without addressing the real issue that the interest had not become payable even in terms of section 43B(e), in para 9 of her order took note of the R…

Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Prop., Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR
Section 43B

…nclosed at Page 34 of paper book). In addition to above, to buttress its point, the assessee also placed heavy reliance on following judicial authorities: i) Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428(SC) ii) Metal Box Company Ltd., Vs Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53(SC) iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605(SC) iv) CIT Vs Modern Spinners Ltd., (2016) 382 ITR 472 (Del) v) Taparia Toos Ltd., Vs Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC). But the Id.CIT(A), without addressing the real issue that the interest had not become payable even in terms of section 43B(e), in para 9 of her order took note of the R…

JCIT (OSD), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1836/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate and Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…scharged 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. 9 ITA No.1836/Del./2016 Applying the principles laid down in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959137 ITR 1(SC), it must be held that the provision made by the assessee- 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 ap…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…es not advance the case of the Assessee; and, instead, it goes against the assessee. Now, we come to the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (Supra). In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering 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) stated, at Paragraph 4 of the Order, the well settled law in these words: “The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…es not advance the case of the Assessee; and, instead, it goes against the assessee. Now, we come to the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (Supra). In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering 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) stated, at Paragraph 4 of the Order, the well settled law in these words: “The law is settled: if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lumax Automotive Systems Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 1823/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit Vs Lumax Automotive Systems Ltd., Circle-4(1), 63-64, Gokhle Market, New Delhi. New Delhi-110054 (Pan: Aaacl6930D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr Assessee By: None Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 35Section 37(1)

…ITA No. 1823/Del/2014 Assessment year 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT vs Lumax Automotive Systems Ltd., Circle-4(1), 63-64, Gokhle Market, New Delhi. New Delhi-110054 (PAN: AAACL6930D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR Assessee by: None Date of hearing: 23.08.2018 Date of pronouncement : 20.11.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the Department against order dated 31/0…

Indo Russian Aviation Ltd., Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 171/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Indo Russian Aviation Ltd., C/O Hal Administrative Block, Ojhar Township, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422207 …. Pan: Aaaci5908C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr Vivek Aggarwal and Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)

…arged 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.” 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the ratio laid down in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC), wherein few principles were laid down which were referred to and were extracted and reproduced 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 h…

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…een held that liability which has arisen in the relevant accounting year is an allowable deduction even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ca…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 3476/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…where the liability on this account accrues from year to year, the same is payable on retirement/ resignation of the eligible employees. In view thereof, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) would clearly get attracted. Respectfully following the decision of the Delhi High Court, we do not find any merit for the disallowance so made by the lower authorities. 21. Last grievance of assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.14,98,594/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…115JB of the Act. 38. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the reasons given by the AO and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 39. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (73 ITR 53) (SC), Bharat Earth Moves v. CIT (245 ITR 428) (SC), CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681) (Bom). Also reliance is placed by him on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05. Mangalore Refinery On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 40. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the releva…