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

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1622/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…n that the question that arises is that whether this provision towards unredeemed bonus points can allowed as a deduction while computing the profits and gains of business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Metal Box Company of India v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT 245 ITR 428 [2000] (SC) had laid down the principle that a provision for liability is allowable as a deduction provided that liability is a present obligation arising from the past events the settlement of which is expected to result in outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possib…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1621/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…n that the question that arises is that whether this provision towards unredeemed bonus points can allowed as a deduction while computing the profits and gains of business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Metal Box Company of India v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT 245 ITR 428 [2000] (SC) had laid down the principle that a provision for liability is allowable as a deduction provided that liability is a present obligation arising from the past events the settlement of which is expected to result in outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possib…

Rm.K.V.Fabrics Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1594/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…n that the question that arises is that whether this provision towards unredeemed bonus points can allowed as a deduction while computing the profits and gains of business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Metal Box Company of India v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT 245 ITR 428 [2000] (SC) had laid down the principle that a provision for liability is allowable as a deduction provided that liability is a present obligation arising from the past events the settlement of which is expected to result in outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possib…

Rm.K.V.Silks Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…n that the question that arises is that whether this provision towards unredeemed bonus points can allowed as a deduction while computing the profits and gains of business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Metal Box Company of India v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT 245 ITR 428 [2000] (SC) had laid down the principle that a provision for liability is allowable as a deduction provided that liability is a present obligation arising from the past events the settlement of which is expected to result in outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possib…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Biecco Lawrie Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2008/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 37

…the aforesaid facts as recorded by AO. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) taking note that assessee has made payment to Gratuity Fund of LIC allowed the appeal of assessee relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Metal Box Co. India Ltd. Vs. Workmen 73 ITR 53 wherein it was held that amount paid towards an approved Gratuity Fund can be deducted u/s. 37 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on three decision of Coordinate bench of this Tribunal, so we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Appeal of revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of revenue…

The ACIT, Eluru vs. M/S. the District Co - Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 269/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

The District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ACIT, Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 524/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

The District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 515/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru vs. M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 78/VIZ/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 50/VIZ/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 49/VIZ/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

The ACIT., Circle - 1, Eluru vs. M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 476/VIZ/2012[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

Addl CIT RG 24(1), Mumbai vs. Arun Damji Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 105/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Arun Damji Gada Vs. Acit 24(1) A-103, God Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Dhughala Bandra (E) Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aabpg3923F Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit 24(1) Vs. Shri Arun Damji Gada C-13 R/Nop, 503 A-103, God Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Bandra (E) Dhughala Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabpg3923F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Shri Arun Damji Gada Vs. ACIT 24(1) A-103, GOD Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Dhughala Bandra (E) Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 PAN/GIR No.AABPG3923F Appellant) .. Respondent) ACIT 24(1) Vs. Shri Arun Damji Gada C-13 R/NOP, 503 A-103, GOD Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Bandra (E) Dhughala Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 PAN/GIR No. AABPG3923F Appellant…

Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/57/2018HC Delhi17 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…harged 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." 5. The ITAT, in the impugned judgment was of the…

DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Associated Pigments Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2042/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: M.Satnaliwala, FCA

…facts of the case, the finding of the Assessing Officer and the submissions put forth on behalf of the appellant. Accrued but undischarged liability must be allowed under mercantile system of accounting. In Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "in the case of 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 be the accepted principles of M/s Associated Pigments Ltd.…

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1307/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…or the financial year 2008-09 has recognized the franchisee consideration of Rs.7,50,90,000/- as current year expenditure. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions to support the above mentioned view:  Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (73 ITR 53 (SC) In this case it has been held that in the case of 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 and accountan…

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

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…invoices. 12.1. Placing reliance on the decision in assessee’s own case decided in favour by CIT (A) for AY 2003-04 and by ITAT for AY 2007-08, and also the decisions reported in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC), Metal Box India (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) , United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) , CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi), National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v JCIT: 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT), Ld. AR argued that that liability which has arisen in the relevant accounting year is an allowable deduction even though its…

M/S Associated Hydro Pressings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40A(7)Section 40A(9)

…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…

The Dcitgnr Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Gujarat State Seeds Corporation, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…arged at a further date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain. Similar is the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Board Co. of India Ltd vs Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53(SC). The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemicals Industries vs CIT reported at 213 ITR 523 has held that if expenditure relating to earlier years is claimed for the liability arising in the relevant previous year, expenditure is deductible u/s, 37 of the IT Act. Following the above judicial pronouncements, since the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc- Sail Power Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5717/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 115JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…f NTPC Sail Power Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No. 1238/2011 in decision dated 17/07/2012 for the AY 2007-08 on identical issue in respect of the addition of interest, and Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 37 ITR 1, Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. vs. Their workmen 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 in respect of the additions made in respect of the net provision of retirement benefits. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue is before us in this appeal stating that the detailed observations of the AO were not properly considered by the Ld. CIT (A) and the interest paid or 5 payable o…