Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT

363 ITR 486High Court2014#8434 most cited

What is Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A provision for an expense is only recognizable when the obligation has already materialized. This means a liability must be firmly established and not merely contingent to be recognized for tax purposes.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT · provision for expenses · accrual of liability · deductible expenses · tax accounting · income tax law · recognized provisions · materialized obligation · accounting principles

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3805/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he triple test prescribed in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC), is not entitled to claim deduction on account of provisioning of expenses. 6.4 Reliance is placed on the following decisions also- (i) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 - “A provision can only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submit…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 705/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2002-2003

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he triple test prescribed in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC), is not entitled to claim deduction on account of provisioning of expenses. 6.4 Reliance is placed on the following decisions also- (i) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 - “A provision can only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submit…

DCIT, Circle-11(1) vs. Ircon International Ltd

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2234/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he triple test prescribed in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC), is not entitled to claim deduction on account of provisioning of expenses. 6.4 Reliance is placed on the following decisions also- (i) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 - “A provision can only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submit…

Ircon International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 3804/DEL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he triple test prescribed in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC), is not entitled to claim deduction on account of provisioning of expenses. 6.4 Reliance is placed on the following decisions also- (i) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 - “A provision can only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submit…

Ircon International Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-11

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1825/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…he triple test prescribed in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC), is not entitled to claim deduction on account of provisioning of expenses. 6.4 Reliance is placed on the following decisions also- (i) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 - “A provision can only be recognized when the obligation has already fructified.” (ii) Grace Shelter Vs. ACIT [2019] 104taxmann.com 133 (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (iv) DCIT Vs. Fag Bearing India Ltd. [2008] 115 ITD 53 (v) CIT Vs. Aman Khera [2016] 387 ITR 33 6.5 The decisions relied upon by the assessee, as submit…

M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Del

ITA/31/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

Section 260ASection 43B

…credit. The amount cannot, in accounting principles, be debited simultaneously to two different accounts, i.e. assets as well as expenditure. Mr. Bhatia relied on the decision of this Court in Oswal Agro Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del) which according to him answered the question squarely against the Assessee. He also referred to the decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Nish Fibres 2010 (257) ELT 81 (Guj) and CCE v. Suprajit Engineering Limited 2010 (253) ELT 369 (Kar). Mr. Bhatia submitted that if Section 43B is read as a whole, it is plain that the deduct…

CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta

ITA/933/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…way to increase the licence fee is derived from the agreements dated 15th March, 1975 and 3rd January, 1978. It is "not unconditional or arbitrary and does not apply automatically." Reliance was placed on the decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del). Reference was also made to the affidavit filed by the Assessee before the EO denying the liability to pay the enhanced licence fee as demanded by the Railways. (ii) There was no stay of the EO's order despite successive challenges by the Northern Railway in the higher forums. Therefore, in terms of the decision dated 19th April 201…

CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta

ITA/935/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…way to increase the licence fee is derived from the agreements dated 15th March, 1975 and 3rd January, 1978. It is "not unconditional or arbitrary and does not apply automatically." Reliance was placed on the decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del). Reference was also made to the affidavit filed by the Assessee before the EO denying the liability to pay the enhanced licence fee as demanded by the Railways. (ii) There was no stay of the EO's order despite successive challenges by the Northern Railway in the higher forums. Therefore, in terms of the decision dated 19th April 201…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Jagdish Prashad Gupta

ITA/424/2016HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…way to increase the licence fee is derived from the agreements dated 15th March, 1975 and 3rd January, 1978. It is "not unconditional or arbitrary and does not apply automatically." Reliance was placed on the decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del). Reference was also made to the affidavit filed by the Assessee before the EO denying the liability to pay the enhanced licence fee as demanded by the Railways. (ii) There was no stay of the EO's order despite successive challenges by the Northern Railway in the higher forums. Therefore, in terms of the decision dated 19th April 201…

CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta

ITA/787/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…way to increase the licence fee is derived from the agreements dated 15th March, 1975 and 3rd January, 1978. It is "not unconditional or arbitrary and does not apply automatically." Reliance was placed on the decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del). Reference was also made to the affidavit filed by the Assessee before the EO denying the liability to pay the enhanced licence fee as demanded by the Railways. (ii) There was no stay of the EO's order despite successive challenges by the Northern Railway in the higher forums. Therefore, in terms of the decision dated 19th April 201…

CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta

ITA/1535/2010HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…way to increase the licence fee is derived from the agreements dated 15th March, 1975 and 3rd January, 1978. It is "not unconditional or arbitrary and does not apply automatically." Reliance was placed on the decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del). Reference was also made to the affidavit filed by the Assessee before the EO denying the liability to pay the enhanced licence fee as demanded by the Railways. (ii) There was no stay of the EO's order despite successive challenges by the Northern Railway in the higher forums. Therefore, in terms of the decision dated 19th April 201…

CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta

ITA/711/2011HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…way to increase the licence fee is derived from the agreements dated 15th March, 1975 and 3rd January, 1978. It is "not unconditional or arbitrary and does not apply automatically." Reliance was placed on the decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del). Reference was also made to the affidavit filed by the Assessee before the EO denying the liability to pay the enhanced licence fee as demanded by the Railways. (ii) There was no stay of the EO's order despite successive challenges by the Northern Railway in the higher forums. Therefore, in terms of the decision dated 19th April 201…

Jagdish Prasad Gupta

ITA/695/2010HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…way to increase the licence fee is derived from the agreements dated 15th March, 1975 and 3rd January, 1978. It is "not unconditional or arbitrary and does not apply automatically." Reliance was placed on the decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 486 (Del). Reference was also made to the affidavit filed by the Assessee before the EO denying the liability to pay the enhanced licence fee as demanded by the Railways. (ii) There was no stay of the EO's order despite successive challenges by the Northern Railway in the higher forums. Therefore, in terms of the decision dated 19th April 201…