Protos Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

282 ITR 550Reported decision#15537 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Protos Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

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)

…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 infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Thus, we sustain the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order. Ground no. 7 raised by the Revenue in its appeals for 201…

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)

…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 infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Thus, we sustain the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order. Ground no. 7 raised by the Revenue in its appeals for 201…

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)

…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 infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Thus, we sustain the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order. Ground no. 7 raised by the Revenue in its appeals for 201…

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)

…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 infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Thus, we sustain the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order. Ground no. 7 raised by the Revenue in its appeals for 201…

Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 425/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT] – DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 37Section 37(1)

…decision in the case of CIT v. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del), held that the provision for Gratuity made on actuarial basis was to be deducted to arrive at book-profits. Honourable Bombay High Court also in case of Protos Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT: 282 ITR 550 has held that liability is considered as ascertained if the same is determined on actuarial valuation. The court held that the provision made for contingent liability was entitled to deduction if the provision was determined accurately and scientifically. In view of this we hold that provision of gratuity made in accordance with AS 15 and backed…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. DCIT Sp RG 3

ITA 9044/MUM/1992[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 1989-90
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi and N.A. ParadeFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S Naik-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…LL and FILL. 4.1.Before us,the AR argued that the interest on securities and investment would qualify as income for benefit u/s.32AB of the Act.He relied upon the cases of Parle Biscuits Ltd.(282 ITR547),Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.(2DTR36),Porots Engg.Co.Pvt.Ltd.(282 ITR 550).The DR supported the order of the FAA and relied upon the cases of Sunil Ambwani and Kashi Nathi Pandey(12 taxmann.com 261); Dinjoye Tea Estate (P.) Ltd.(93 Taxman 114); D&H Secheron Electrodes Ltd.(298 ITR 101); Warren Tea Ltd.(251 ITR 382);Parry Agro Industries Ltd. (285 ITR 440) and Trichy Distilleries Chemicals Ltd.(272ITR227). 4.2.We find…