Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

314 ITR 62Supreme Court of India2009#69 most cited

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.

739

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 314 ITR 62 · Section 37(1) · provision for warranty expenses · allowability of provision · definition of liability · present obligation · reliable estimate · mercantile system of accounting · revenue expenditure deduction

Also reported as

223 CTR 425

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 147Section 234CSection 40(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 35denduring benefitsection 32(1)put to useblock of assetssection 40(a)(i)intangible assetsmercantile system of accountingsection 35section 37(1)section 32revenue expenditure

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

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…r by the assessee which is duly proved in the extensive workings provided before the lower authorities and hence, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs CIT in 314 ITR 62. We also find that this issue has been allowed by the Tribunal in assessee‘s own case for the A.Y.1989-1990 to A.Y.1998-1999. Later in A.Y.2009-10, this issue was remitted back to the file of the ld. AO to decide the same in the light of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. We find that the decision for A.Y.2009-10 was rendered by this Tribunal b…

Thyssenkrupp Idustrial Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purpose as per above terms

ITA 1957/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Thyssenkrupp Industrial V. Dcit – Range – 15(3)(1) Solutions (India) Private Limited Room No. 451, 4Th Floor {Formerly Known As Uhde India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Private Limited} Mumbai - 400020 Uhde House, L.B.S. Marg Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 Pan: Aaacu1416H Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri H. Jamshedji Revenue Represented By : Shri Samual Pitta

Section 144CSection 234BSection 234D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Thyssenkrupp Industrial v. DCIT – Range – 15(3)(1) Solutions (India) Private Limited Room No. 451, 4th Floor {Formerly known as Uhde India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Private Limited} Mumbai - 400020 Uhde House, L.B.S. Marg Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 PAN: AAACU1416H Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented by : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri H. Jamshedji Revenue Represented by : Shri Samual Pitta Date of Hearing : 17.08.2022 Date of pronouncement : 07.11.…

M/S. Mag India Industrial Automation Systems Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 886/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, JCIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 263

…y details in support of its case that provision for warranty claimed is based on historical date and on scientific basis and is in tune with the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 5 M/s.MAG India Industrial Automation Systems Pvt.Ltd. (SC). The CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 31st day of October, 2022. (Pa…

Ttk Prestige Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA/738/2018HC Karnataka14 Oct 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 260

…ted that the provision made for items other than pressure cookers and cookware, is not based on the warranty claims of previous years, Hence, the conditions prescribed in Rotork Controls, 5 (2009)314 ITR 62 (SC) - paras - 27,28,29,30 I.T.A No.737/2018 C/W I.T.A No.736/2018 I.T.A No.738/2018 10 are not f…

Ttk Prestige Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA/737/2018HC Karnataka14 Oct 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 260

…ted that the provision made for items other than pressure cookers and cookware, is not based on the warranty claims of previous years, Hence, the conditions prescribed in Rotork Controls, 5 (2009)314 ITR 62 (SC) - paras - 27,28,29,30 I.T.A No.737/2018 C/W I.T.A No.736/2018 I.T.A No.738/2018 10 are not f…

Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…of diagnostic equipments and further provides warranty to its customer, in case any defects in the machines. Therefore, such provision is in accordance with ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd., v. CIT [314 ITR 62] (SC). The assessee had also explained why the AO has accepted disallowance computed u/s.14A r.w.r.8D of IT Rules, 1962. 7. The learned PCIT, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of various decisions including decision of the ITAT., Bangalore bench in the case of DCIT Vs United Breweries Ltd. (TS- 553-ITAT 2…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of (Formerly known as Idea Income Tax-3(2) Cellular Ltd.,) Mumbai 10th Floor, Birla Centurian Room NO.608, 6th Floor Mills Compound Aaykar Bhawan Pandurang Budhkar Marg M.K.Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAACB2100P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., Income Tax-3(2) (Formerly known as Idea Mumbai Cellular Ltd.,) Room NO.608, 6th Floor 10th Floor, Birla Centuria…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of (Formerly known as Idea Income Tax-3(2) Cellular Ltd.,) Mumbai 10th Floor, Birla Centurian Room NO.608, 6th Floor Mills Compound Aaykar Bhawan Pandurang Budhkar Marg M.K.Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAACB2100P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., Income Tax-3(2) (Formerly known as Idea Mumbai Cellular Ltd.,) Room NO.608, 6th Floor 10th Floor, Birla Centuria…

Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dict, Circle-1(2), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1885/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1885/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., 1401, A-Wing, One Bkc, Plot C-66, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. Pan : Aadcr5942E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 22.07.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit Circle-1(2), Pune/623/2014-15/227, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Very Factual Position Had Existed On 30.05.2022 & 21.07.2022 As Well. We Thus Proceed Ex-Parte Against The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1885/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., 1401, A-Wing, One BKC, Plot C-66, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. PAN : AADCR5942E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 28.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 07.10.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 aris…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…f Karnataka in ITA 912/2008 dt.07.06.2016 on this issue is answered in favour of the assessee. 47.3 Further the assessee relies on the following case laws in support of its claim: Decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P)Ltd vs CIT - 314 ITR 62- PB-III page 616 to 632. Decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Racold Thermo Private Limited vs ACIT - ITA 2654/Pun/2017 dt.12.05.2022 - PB-III page 633 to 636. Decision of ITAT New Delhi Bench in the case of Nokia India Sales Pvt Ltd vs Addl.CIT - ITA 2527/Del/2018 dt.12.01.2021 - PB-III page 637 to 658. 47.4 Without prejudice, if the obsole…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…f Karnataka in ITA 912/2008 dt.07.06.2016 on this issue is answered in favour of the assessee. 47.3 Further the assessee relies on the following case laws in support of its claim: Decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P)Ltd vs CIT - 314 ITR 62- PB-III page 616 to 632. Decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Racold Thermo Private Limited vs ACIT - ITA 2654/Pun/2017 dt.12.05.2022 - PB-III page 633 to 636. Decision of ITAT New Delhi Bench in the case of Nokia India Sales Pvt Ltd vs Addl.CIT - ITA 2527/Del/2018 dt.12.01.2021 - PB-III page 637 to 658. 47.4 Without prejudice, if the obsole…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…1 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN : AAACM3025E Mumbai-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax, vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 PAN : AAA…

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…1 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN : AAACM3025E Mumbai-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax, vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 PAN : AAA…

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

…tax neutral since disallowance/ allowance for year 1 is allowed/ disallowed in year 2. 56. In support of contention that provisions on best estimate should be allowed as deduction Ld. AR relied on following case laws: - (i). Rotork Controls India (P) Limited (314 ITR 62)(SC) (ii). JCIT vs ITC LTD (112 ITD 57) (KOL SB) (iii). Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (245 ITR 428)(SC) 57. Further, relying on following case laws, Ld.AR submitted that the disallowance of excess and short year end provisions is revenue-neutral accordingly, no addition on account of the same is warranted. (i). Excel Industries Limited (358 ITR 295)…

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 72/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, 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 "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 and 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by :…

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 71/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, 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 "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 and 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s. BGR Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [PAN:AABCG2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by :…

M/S Macmillan Publishers India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2784/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2784/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Macmillan Publishers India The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 4(1), No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aafcm 5564R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai In Ita No.69/18- 19 Dated 16.07.2019. The Re-Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Company Circle 4(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2018. I.T.A. No.2784/Chny/2019 2 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S 148 Of The Act Even Though There Is No Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly The Material Fact Necessary For Its Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Year & The Original Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Regarding Reopening Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative, Hence Need Not To Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2784/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Macmillan Publishers India The ACIT, Pvt. Ltd., v. Corporate Circle 4(1), No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. PAN: AAFCM 5564R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT…

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…e on a scientific basis, i.e. on the basis of the sales revenues of a given period. 3.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rotork Control India Private Limited v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC). 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in Upholding the disallowance of Rs. 9,44,719/- on account of non- deduction of tax relating to professional fees paid by the assessee to its associated enterprises as well as to third parties. 4.1. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law, in ign…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…at a scientific basis is liable to be disallowed. It was the submission that the quantification has P a g e 34 | 52 OPGC been done on scientific basis in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rotork Control India P Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC). It was his submission that same was liable to be allowed in view of the decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, (2000)245 ITR 428(SC) . 43. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the notes to the account being Schedule -20 to profit and loss account showed the amount was in the nature of prov…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 130/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…at a scientific basis is liable to be disallowed. It was the submission that the quantification has P a g e 34 | 52 OPGC been done on scientific basis in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rotork Control India P Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC). It was his submission that same was liable to be allowed in view of the decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT, (2000)245 ITR 428(SC) . 43. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the notes to the account being Schedule -20 to profit and loss account showed the amount was in the nature of prov…