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?

739 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)

DCIT, Chennai vs. V.A. Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

…the Assessing Officer, the contentions of the assessee, etc. carefully. The issue of provisions tor warranty is a widely debated issue and the matter has gone up the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P Ltd. VS. CIT (314 ITR 62)(SC) held that the provisions for warranties is an allowable deduction. The head note of the decision is as under: Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd, v. CIT(180 TAXMAN 422)/SC)/(314 ITR 62)(SC) Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95 - Whether for a provision to qualify…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 845/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT

Section 143(3)

…essee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee for warranty claims on the basis of past experience is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Act. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, 245 ITR 428, the Supreme Court held that where the assessee has incurred expenditure which is more than the provision for warranty obligation made in the books of acc…

M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 399/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, CIT

Section 143(3)

…essee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee for warranty claims on the basis of past experience is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Act. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, 245 ITR 428, the Supreme Court held that where the assessee has incurred expenditure which is more than the provision for warranty obligation made in the books of acc…

Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2009-10 Continental Automotive Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Components India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Circle 2(1)(1), Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 099. PAN: AAKCS 9578C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 26.07.2023 Date o…

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 419/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…on for warranty clause for each and every vehicle sold on a regular basis year on year. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT in 314 ITR 62. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order allowing the claim of provision for warranty expenses. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/08/2023 G.S. PANNU SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER PR…

DCIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 278/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

DCIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 277/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

M/S Bgr Eergy Systems Limied, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 222/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

M/S Bgr Eergy Systems Limied, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 221/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1692/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1692/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.United India- Of Income Tax, Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 014. [Pan: Aaacu 5552 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel Assessee By : Mr.S.Sundararaman, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan

Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 4A

…provision is to be treated as one made for unascertained liabilities only, since the assessee cannot make the payment without the notification. 4.4 The CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P Ltd. (314 ITR 62) which was rendered in the context of :: 3 :: provision for warranty and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A and in holding that invoking the provisions of Rule 8D is not in order. 5.2. The CIT(A), failed to appreciate that the expenditure relating to exempt income…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncl Green Habitats Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1790/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri M. Naveen Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…th regard to cash flow projections are also noted. At this point, we feel it proper to take note of two judgments of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Bharat earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62. In the first case, the issue in dispute was regarding estimation of future liability of leave encashment and it was held by Hon'ble apex court in this case that the liability should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. It was held that if this is satisfied than the liability…

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 810/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 40

…tted that this warranty cost is ascertained liability and not merely the provision. He further, stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). We find that the provision of the liability has been made by the assessee on the past trends available of the product failure and incurring of warranty expenditure for that. Naturally, assessee extends the warranty of the pumps sold for 18 months. The only information that could be used by the assessee is the past product failure. This is no…

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 80HSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 94(7)

…are as follows (page 623 of 25 ITR (Trib)) : "When we consider the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable with full force to the deductibility of the discount on incurring of liability on the rendition of service by the employees. The factum of the employees becoming entitled to Page No. | 25 ITA NO. 2908 & 4108/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2003-04) M/s. Zensor Technologies Ltd exercise options a…

Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1012/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e event is certain, only how many such events can occur is uncertain. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has also used the words "contingent liability" for warranty expense and allowed deduction in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 621. Therefore, coming back to the point of making provision, even if the assessee had chosen to provide for the liability in every year to comply with the matching concept, it would have been wholly unscientific and arbitrary. At this juncture, when we are making the observation that the assessee has incurred a liability to provide accommodation, it…

DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 944/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e event is certain, only how many such events can occur is uncertain. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has also used the words "contingent liability" for warranty expense and allowed deduction in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 621. Therefore, coming back to the point of making provision, even if the assessee had chosen to provide for the liability in every year to comply with the matching concept, it would have been wholly unscientific and arbitrary. At this juncture, when we are making the observation that the assessee has incurred a liability to provide accommodation, it…

DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 943/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e event is certain, only how many such events can occur is uncertain. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has also used the words "contingent liability" for warranty expense and allowed deduction in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 621. Therefore, coming back to the point of making provision, even if the assessee had chosen to provide for the liability in every year to comply with the matching concept, it would have been wholly unscientific and arbitrary. At this juncture, when we are making the observation that the assessee has incurred a liability to provide accommodation, it…

DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 942/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e event is certain, only how many such events can occur is uncertain. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has also used the words "contingent liability" for warranty expense and allowed deduction in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 621. Therefore, coming back to the point of making provision, even if the assessee had chosen to provide for the liability in every year to comply with the matching concept, it would have been wholly unscientific and arbitrary. At this juncture, when we are making the observation that the assessee has incurred a liability to provide accommodation, it…

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 941/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e event is certain, only how many such events can occur is uncertain. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has also used the words "contingent liability" for warranty expense and allowed deduction in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 621. Therefore, coming back to the point of making provision, even if the assessee had chosen to provide for the liability in every year to comply with the matching concept, it would have been wholly unscientific and arbitrary. At this juncture, when we are making the observation that the assessee has incurred a liability to provide accommodation, it…

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 940/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e event is certain, only how many such events can occur is uncertain. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has also used the words "contingent liability" for warranty expense and allowed deduction in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 621. Therefore, coming back to the point of making provision, even if the assessee had chosen to provide for the liability in every year to comply with the matching concept, it would have been wholly unscientific and arbitrary. At this juncture, when we are making the observation that the assessee has incurred a liability to provide accommodation, it…

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 939/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…e event is certain, only how many such events can occur is uncertain. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has also used the words "contingent liability" for warranty expense and allowed deduction in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 621. Therefore, coming back to the point of making provision, even if the assessee had chosen to provide for the liability in every year to comply with the matching concept, it would have been wholly unscientific and arbitrary. At this juncture, when we are making the observation that the assessee has incurred a liability to provide accommodation, it…

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. V.A. Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Chennai

M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai

Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-2(1)(1), Bangalore

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai

DCIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai

M/S Bgr Eergy Systems Limied, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

M/S Bgr Eergy Systems Limied, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncl Green Habitats Private Limited, Hyderabad

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai

DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd., Chennai

DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd., Chennai

DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd., Chennai

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Chennai

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Chennai

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Chennai