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

Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

…ee for meeting the liability to be incurred in future and the said liability which incurred. In this respect he relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs CIT 314 ITR 62. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the present claim had been made by the assessee as per estimation of such market claims by dealers and distributors and therefore, it was the obligation as per the claims to this effect made by dealers/distributors and thus, crystallized and came into effect during the relevant previous years. He…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

…ee for meeting the liability to be incurred in future and the said liability which incurred. In this respect he relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs CIT 314 ITR 62. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the present claim had been made by the assessee as per estimation of such market claims by dealers and distributors and therefore, it was the obligation as per the claims to this effect made by dealers/distributors and thus, crystallized and came into effect during the relevant previous years. He…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

…ee for meeting the liability to be incurred in future and the said liability which incurred. In this respect he relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs CIT 314 ITR 62. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the present claim had been made by the assessee as per estimation of such market claims by dealers and distributors and therefore, it was the obligation as per the claims to this effect made by dealers/distributors and thus, crystallized and came into effect during the relevant previous years. He…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

…ee for meeting the liability to be incurred in future and the said liability which incurred. In this respect he relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs CIT 314 ITR 62. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the present claim had been made by the assessee as per estimation of such market claims by dealers and distributors and therefore, it was the obligation as per the claims to this effect made by dealers/distributors and thus, crystallized and came into effect during the relevant previous years. He…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 219/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

…ee for meeting the liability to be incurred in future and the said liability which incurred. In this respect he relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT 245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs CIT 314 ITR 62. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the present claim had been made by the assessee as per estimation of such market claims by dealers and distributors and therefore, it was the obligation as per the claims to this effect made by dealers/distributors and thus, crystallized and came into effect during the relevant previous years. He…

Fl Smidth Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1366/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1366/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Vs. Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Corporate Circle – 2 (1), Chennai – 603 103. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaacf4997N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 04.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai Dated 13.04.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011–12. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Directed The Assessing Officer To Exclude The Interest Expenditure While Computing The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S.14A Of The Income-Tax Act. 2.1 The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Wrong, Illegal & Opposed To Facts In So Far As It Confirms The Disallowance Of Provision Of Estimated Loss Of Rs. 1,14,45,495 On Contracts.

Section 142(1)Section 14A

…355 (Chennai – Trib.). Therefore, the provision created in this year of Rs.1,14,45,495 is disallowed.” 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Limited (2009) 314 ITR 62 and submitted that the provision for estimation of loss on contracts is an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Act. By considering the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has 4 I.T.A. No. 1366/Chny/2017 not able been able to demonstrate in this appeal…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2247/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2246/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2245/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2244/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

M/S. Bhararth Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2049/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2048/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2047/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2046/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…an 1% and further they are very near each other. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page 36 of 46 The Ld CIT(A) also referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (314 ITR 62)(SC) in this regard. He further noticed that he had allowed identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 and AY 2008-09. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made in AY 2011-12 also. 14.2 The Ld CIT-DR supported the order passed by the AO on this issue. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the provision created forms…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1126/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15
Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…ons were neither on a scientific basis nor were reliable. The Assessing Officer, while making the disallowance, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. reported ACIT vs. Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd., in 314 ITR 62(SC) on the ground that the assessee company did not fulfill the following conditions:- (i) An obligation to incur expenses should have been arisen; (ii) The estimate should be on scientific basis; and (iii) The estimate should be on reliable based on experience and historical trend. 5.1 It was the assessee’s submissions before the Lower Authori…

Konark Refrigeration Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 985/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Konark Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aacck 6564E …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Lenka. Respondent By : Smt. N. Esther. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.22.02.2018 Passed In Case No.0252/Cit(A)-8/Hyd/2016-17 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri K. LenkaFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40a

…fficer nor the CIT(A) have considers the corresponding three aspects of the same based on historic trends and scientific estimation followed by appropriate provision as per hon'ble apex court’s land mark decision in Rotor Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). We thus restore the instant second issue as well back to the Assessing Officer to be examined afresh in foregoing terms within three effective opportunities of hearing. 5. This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Aug.,2021. (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Mem…

Dy CIT Circle- 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kosi Bridge Infrastructure Company Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37

…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 ease 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. Bpl Medical Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 105/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

…ITA No.105/Bang/2020 M/s. BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 11th KM, Arakere, Income-tax Bannerghata Road Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore Bangalore PAN NO :AAFCB3158E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Manasa Ananthan, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date of Hearing : 20.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT ME…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tecumseh Products India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Tecumseh Products Income-Tax, Circle – 2(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabct 6893J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Lakka Bhushanam Assessee By: None Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Lakka Bhushanam
Section 143(3)Section 37

…orkings, it is seen that the provision for warranty was provided for on rational basis which the appellant had been following consistently. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd, v. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) wherein it was observed that where the statistical data indicates that every year some of these manufactured goods are found to be :- 4 -: M/s Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. defective, being sophisticated items, no customer is prepared to buy such goods without a warranty. Hence it was observed that warranty forms an integral part…

Rohde & Schwarz India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7831/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7831/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Rohde & Schwarz India P. Ltd. Dcit A-27, 1St Floor, Mohan Vs. Circle 21(2) Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacr3267P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 40

…when the copy of the ITAT’s order the Appellant’s own case for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 in Appeal No. ITA No. 894/Del/2012 & ITA No. 520/Del/2013 respectively was I.T.A.No.7831/Del/2017 produced, where the Hon’ble ITAT relying on Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 has held in favour of the Appellant. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 72,93,983/- on account of non-deduction of tax u/s 40(a)(i) a) Especially when all the details were submitted before the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at the time of assessment and no inaccurate particulars were furnished and all the additions are deleteable. b) The order of the H…