What is Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

How many judgments cite Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

732 judgments on BharatTax cite Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 147.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62)

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in [1969] 73 ITR 53 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 7.2. The Ld.AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held as under: “In the present case 'provisions for pension, is as a result of change in accountancy policy. The liability is dependent on other relevant events to happen and is contingent in nature. The allowance of liabilities of similar nature is actually made under specific…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…case of Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 1 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in [1969] 73 ITR 53 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 7.2. The Ld.AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held as under: “In the present case 'provisions for pension, is as a result of change in accountancy policy. The liability is dependent on other relevant events to happen and is contingent in nature. The allowance of liabilities of similar nature is actually made under specific…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW DELHI vs. OPPO MOBILES INDIA (P) LTD

The appeal stands disposed of

ITA/84/2026HC Delhi17 Mar 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

…ITA 84/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 84/2026 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms.Naincy Jain, JSC Ms.Madhavi Shukla, JSC & Mr. Udit Dad, Adv. versus OPPO MOBILES INDIA (P) LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra, Mr. Anil Kumar & Ms. S. Kalra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 17.03.202…

ACIT, GNR CIRCLE, GNR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 94/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)

…he year and the amount thereof can be reasonably estimated, the same cannot be regarded as an unascertained liability merely because the exact outflow of funds may occur in a subsequent year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62) has held that a provision for warranty made on the basis of a scientific method and past experience represents a present obligation arising from past events and therefore 4 ITA Nos. 839/Ahd/2023 & ITA No. 94/Ahd/2024 Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited – A.Y. 2014-15 constitutes an ascertained liability. Similar principle has also been laid down…

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)

…he year and the amount thereof can be reasonably estimated, the same cannot be regarded as an unascertained liability merely because the exact outflow of funds may occur in a subsequent year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62) has held that a provision for warranty made on the basis of a scientific method and past experience represents a present obligation arising from past events and therefore 4 ITA Nos. 839/Ahd/2023 & ITA No. 94/Ahd/2024 Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited – A.Y. 2014-15 constitutes an ascertained liability. Similar principle has also been laid down…

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 4043, 4044, 4045 and 4064/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2022-23 Overseas Infrastructure ACIT Central Circle 6(2) Alliance(India) Private Mumbai Limited 501-502,OIA House 470, Vs. Cardinal Gracias Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 (PAN: AABCS5629R) (assessee) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 3995, 3996, 4321, 4090, 3998, 4319, 4320 and 4318/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 ACIT Central Circle…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3658/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltk Elevator Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), Thyssenkrupp Elevator C. R. Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Tk Elevator Private Limited Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), (Earlier Known As Room No. 192A C. R. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv& Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

…e incurred are debited to the provision account and balance provision is carried forward. In anyway, he submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Rotrork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 314 ITR 62. 29. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessee at the time of sale of elevators provides product warranty free from defects in material and workmanship.. The period of warranty is 18 months or 12 months as per contract. The Assessee provides 3% of material for product warranty. The amount actually incurred is separately char…

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3015/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltk Elevator Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), Thyssenkrupp Elevator C. R. Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Tk Elevator Private Limited Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), (Earlier Known As Room No. 192A C. R. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv& Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

…e incurred are debited to the provision account and balance provision is carried forward. In anyway, he submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Rotrork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 314 ITR 62. 29. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Assessee at the time of sale of elevators provides product warranty free from defects in material and workmanship.. The period of warranty is 18 months or 12 months as per contract. The Assessee provides 3% of material for product warranty. The amount actually incurred is separately char…

MARELLI UM ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with a direction to grant

ITA 5805/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklamarelli Um Electronic Vs. Dcit/Assessment Unit, Systems Private Limited Income Tax Department 402, Sector-8, Imt Circle 16(1) Manesar Gurugram, Delhi, Cr Building Gurgaon – 122051 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcm8906R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…P a g e | 1 Marelli Um Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2021-22) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Marelli Um Electronic Vs. DCIT/Assessment Unit, Systems Private Limited Income Tax Department 402, Sector-8, IMT Circle 16(1) Manesar Gurugram, Delhi, CR Building Gurgaon – 122051 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFCM8906R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Bansal, CA Respondent by : Ms. Ankush Kalra. Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronou…

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

…on of Rs. 4,51,07,257/- as allowable expenditure. The claim of the Assessee is that warranty expenditure is not contingent in nature which is made on scientific basis and should be allowed as a deduction in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 314 ITR 62. 11. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the Ld. lower authorities. The facts clearly shows that the main assessment year is 2017-18. In Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee made a provision of Rs. 9,18,70,138/- out of which the Assessee utilized the provi…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…d in accordance with the terms of applicable Ind AS and binding accounting guidelines mandated as per the Companies Act. 38. Reference, in this regard, may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 wherein, in context of allowability of provision for warranty expenses, it has been held that "17. At this stage, we once again reiterate that a liability is a present obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount o…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…d in accordance with the terms of applicable Ind AS and binding accounting guidelines mandated as per the Companies Act. 38. Reference, in this regard, may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 wherein, in context of allowability of provision for warranty expenses, it has been held that "17. At this stage, we once again reiterate that a liability is a present obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount o…

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

What is Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW DELHI vs. OPPO MOBILES INDIA (P) LTD

ACIT, GNR CIRCLE, GNR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

MARELLI UM ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI