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)

Deutsche Cib Centre P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2179/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 37

…by Special Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in Biocon Ltd. (supra). Special Bench of Tribunal after considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT reported in 245 ITR 428 and Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 observed as under: “9.3.5 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 (supra) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. (supra), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable with full force to the deductibility of the discount on incurring of…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…on various matters. According to him, it is a business liability that has arisen during the FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11 and to be allowed in view of various decisions, specifically Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Rotork Controls v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there is no basis for this provision towards legal fees or out of pocket expenses and the lump sum provision is made without specific production of details of litigation pending at various courts. As such, he relied on the order of DRP. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the mate…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…on various matters. According to him, it is a business liability that has arisen during the FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11 and to be allowed in view of various decisions, specifically Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Rotork Controls v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there is no basis for this provision towards legal fees or out of pocket expenses and the lump sum provision is made without specific production of details of litigation pending at various courts. As such, he relied on the order of DRP. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the mate…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…on various matters. According to him, it is a business liability that has arisen during the FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11 and to be allowed in view of various decisions, specifically Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Rotork Controls v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there is no basis for this provision towards legal fees or out of pocket expenses and the lump sum provision is made without specific production of details of litigation pending at various courts. As such, he relied on the order of DRP. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the mate…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

…on various matters. According to him, it is a business liability that has arisen during the FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11 and to be allowed in view of various decisions, specifically Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Rotork Controls v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there is no basis for this provision towards legal fees or out of pocket expenses and the lump sum provision is made without specific production of details of litigation pending at various courts. As such, he relied on the order of DRP. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the mate…

M/S. Armee Infotech, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

ITA 1900/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. Pan : Aaifa 4964 D

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma

Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘C’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, SG Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. PAN : AAIFA 4964 D आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1900/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 AND Asstt.Year : 2014-15 Armee Infotech Vs. ACIT,Cir.6(1), 1002, Akik Building Ahmedabad. Opp: Rajpath Club, SG Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. अपीलाथ"/ (App…

The ACIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad vs. Armee Infotech, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

ITA 1778/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. Pan : Aaifa 4964 D

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma

Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘C’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, SG Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. PAN : AAIFA 4964 D आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1900/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 AND Asstt.Year : 2014-15 Armee Infotech Vs. ACIT,Cir.6(1), 1002, Akik Building Ahmedabad. Opp: Rajpath Club, SG Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. अपीलाथ"/ (App…

ITO WD 11(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Salient Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3059/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…rted in 245 ITR 428(SC) b) The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor of India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 312 ITR 254. c) The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 among others. 3.10. The assessee also submitted that against various provisions made, it has in subsequent years discharged the liabilities to certain extent and even as on 31/03/2016 certain sums are still payable to the respective unauthorised and authorised slum dwellers. It was also pointed out that the subsequent assessment years were also s…

Tremco Roffing & Facility Services Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3350/CHNY/2018[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3350/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Tremco Roofing & Facility The Asst. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.60, B-1, First Floor, Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), Ganesh Towers, First Avenue, Chennai. 100 Feet Road, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. [Pan: Aadct 5389H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Farookh Irani, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai In I.T.A No.85/2016-17 Dated 26.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Based On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tremco Roofing & Facility Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant') Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 26 September 2018

For Appellant: Shri Farookh Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3350/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Tremco Roofing & Facility The Asst. Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.60, B-1, First Floor, Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), Ganesh Towers, First Avenue, Chennai. 100 Feet Road, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. [PAN: AADCT 5389H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appe…

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…departmental appeal for the AY 2015-16 on this issue. A photocopy of the order is placed at Page No. 224-233 of the P lB. 11 e. That the Ld. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur has referred to certain judicial pronouncements: i. Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 341 ITR 62 "That the Apex Court has held that in case the appellant makes provisions for product warranty, the same would be allowable only if such estimation is made on some scientific basis based on historical trend." That as submitted above accounting of expenditure towards Overburden Removal is made on the basis of well defined, scientific and historical…

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Gorakhpur Infrastructure Co Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 574/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…counting. The contractual obligation to carry out Periodic Maintenance is an integral part of the Concession granted to the appellant and is similar to the provisions for warranty. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd.(314 ITR 62 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble SC has treated the provision for contingent liabilities as allowable expense only on the fulfillment of certain conditions. It mentioned that the provision for a contingent liability can be allowed as an expense only if it is ascertained according to a reasonable scientific method which uses historical experience and stati…

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 713/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

…ncurred during the assessment year. IT(TP)A No. 713/Bang/2017 Page 56 of 79 107. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- “16. The question which arose for determination was : whether during the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 the assessee-company was entitled to claim deduction of the yearly premium from its profits under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It was held that the provision in the p…

M/S Infosys Bpm Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2884/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…the amount cannot be determined with certainty and represents only a best estimate in the light of available information. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 that the provision for expenses is allowable as deduction. Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, it is required to provide for all known expenses and losses. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the various departments of the assessee had purchased software before the yearend, but relevant invoices would not have been received by…