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)

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

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…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 288/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

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 Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

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…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 175/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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 Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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 Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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…

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…s,’ the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.2,33,15,603/- under the head ‘warranty’ and claimed that it pertains to provision made for warranty expenses in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62). Further, the assessee had once again, claimed deduction towards actual expenditure incurred towards warranty amounting to Rs.3,20,60,542/-. In other words, the assessee has claimed deduction towards provision made for warranty as well as actual amount incurred towards warranty expenses, contrary to its own accounting principles followed for ea…

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…s,’ the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.2,33,15,603/- under the head ‘warranty’ and claimed that it pertains to provision made for warranty expenses in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62). Further, the assessee had once again, claimed deduction towards actual expenditure incurred towards warranty amounting to Rs.3,20,60,542/-. In other words, the assessee has claimed deduction towards provision made for warranty as well as actual amount incurred towards warranty expenses, contrary to its own accounting principles followed for ea…

Socomec Innovative Power Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 572/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.617/Chny/2015 & 572/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Socomec Innovative Power Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Tax, [Formerly Known As Socomec Ups India Pvt.Ltd.] Corporate Circle-6(2) Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai-34. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aakcs 3579H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…that it has made provision for warranty expenses based on historical trend and past experience. The assessee further claims that it has taken support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs.CIT., 314 ITR 62 and argued that its case is squarely covered by the facts of the above case. The Assessing Officer has disallowed provision for warranty on the ground that the assessee has not provided basis for arriving provision created for warranty expenses and details regarding computation of expenditure has not been explained. 11. We have heard both the…

Socomec Innovative Power Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 617/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.617/Chny/2015 & 572/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Socomec Innovative Power Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Tax, [Formerly Known As Socomec Ups India Pvt.Ltd.] Corporate Circle-6(2) Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Chennai-34. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aakcs 3579H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…that it has made provision for warranty expenses based on historical trend and past experience. The assessee further claims that it has taken support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs.CIT., 314 ITR 62 and argued that its case is squarely covered by the facts of the above case. The Assessing Officer has disallowed provision for warranty on the ground that the assessee has not provided basis for arriving provision created for warranty expenses and details regarding computation of expenditure has not been explained. 11. We have heard both the…

M/S. Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2634/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

…to have appreciated that warranty is an estimate based on previous experience and that actual expenditure may not match the provision and any excess or shortage in the provision is made is adjusted in the subsequent year. Rotork Controls India P.Ltd Vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62(SC). 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of tyres. We noted that this matter travelled up to ITAT and ITAT in ITA Nos.641 to 645/Chny/2018 dated 09.05.2018 set aside the matter back to the file of the AO to follow the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls I…

M/S. Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2633/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

…to have appreciated that warranty is an estimate based on previous experience and that actual expenditure may not match the provision and any excess or shortage in the provision is made is adjusted in the subsequent year. Rotork Controls India P.Ltd Vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62(SC). 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of tyres. We noted that this matter travelled up to ITAT and ITAT in ITA Nos.641 to 645/Chny/2018 dated 09.05.2018 set aside the matter back to the file of the AO to follow the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls I…

M/S. Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2632/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

…to have appreciated that warranty is an estimate based on previous experience and that actual expenditure may not match the provision and any excess or shortage in the provision is made is adjusted in the subsequent year. Rotork Controls India P.Ltd Vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62(SC). 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of tyres. We noted that this matter travelled up to ITAT and ITAT in ITA Nos.641 to 645/Chny/2018 dated 09.05.2018 set aside the matter back to the file of the AO to follow the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls I…

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/s.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1) v. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. PAN : AABCN9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal…

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…s. 448 and 449 of 2008. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 26-9-2012, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the issue in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 180 Taxman 422/314 ITR 62 (This is what is referred to by the AO in page 25, para 3 in the assessment order for assessment year 2009- 2010). After remand, this Tribunal further remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer vide order dated 13-2-2015. The same was challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Dell International Services India (P.)…

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 851/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…of assessee in assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, in subsequent impugned assessment years the Assessing Officer rejected the claim. The assessee has created the provisions on scientific basis in line with Rotork Control India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62 and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428. The issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Kosi Bridge Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.581, 582 and 576/Mum/2020 for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 decided on 08/10/2021 and also in the case of assessee’s sister concern M/s. Gorakhpur Infrastructure…

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…of assessee in assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, in subsequent impugned assessment years the Assessing Officer rejected the claim. The assessee has created the provisions on scientific basis in line with Rotork Control India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62 and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428. The issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Kosi Bridge Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.581, 582 and 576/Mum/2020 for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 decided on 08/10/2021 and also in the case of assessee’s sister concern M/s. Gorakhpur Infrastructure…

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 849/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi

Section 32(1)(i)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…of assessee in assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, in subsequent impugned assessment years the Assessing Officer rejected the claim. The assessee has created the provisions on scientific basis in line with Rotork Control India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62 and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428. The issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Kosi Bridge Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.581, 582 and 576/Mum/2020 for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 decided on 08/10/2021 and also in the case of assessee’s sister concern M/s. Gorakhpur Infrastructure…

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/s. NIKE India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Ground and First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. PAN : AABCN 9612 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice…

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

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

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

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

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

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

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

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

Socomec Innovative Power Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Socomec Innovative Power Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Mrf Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore