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

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…regards various case laws relied upon by the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork 42 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62, we find that facts of said case is entirely different because the assessee was manufacturer of certain goods and had made provision for warranty in respect of after sales services. Further, provision made by the assessee was utilized for providing warranty to the customers. Under those facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts establish…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 24/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…regards various case laws relied upon by the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork 42 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62, we find that facts of said case is entirely different because the assessee was manufacturer of certain goods and had made provision for warranty in respect of after sales services. Further, provision made by the assessee was utilized for providing warranty to the customers. Under those facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts establish…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 23/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…regards various case laws relied upon by the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork 42 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62, we find that facts of said case is entirely different because the assessee was manufacturer of certain goods and had made provision for warranty in respect of after sales services. Further, provision made by the assessee was utilized for providing warranty to the customers. Under those facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts establish…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…regards various case laws relied upon by the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork 42 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62, we find that facts of said case is entirely different because the assessee was manufacturer of certain goods and had made provision for warranty in respect of after sales services. Further, provision made by the assessee was utilized for providing warranty to the customers. Under those facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts establish…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1511/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…regards various case laws relied upon by the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork 42 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62, we find that facts of said case is entirely different because the assessee was manufacturer of certain goods and had made provision for warranty in respect of after sales services. Further, provision made by the assessee was utilized for providing warranty to the customers. Under those facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts establish…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…regards various case laws relied upon by the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork 42 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62, we find that facts of said case is entirely different because the assessee was manufacturer of certain goods and had made provision for warranty in respect of after sales services. Further, provision made by the assessee was utilized for providing warranty to the customers. Under those facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts establish…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…regards various case laws relied upon by the assessee including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork 42 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62, we find that facts of said case is entirely different because the assessee was manufacturer of certain goods and had made provision for warranty in respect of after sales services. Further, provision made by the assessee was utilized for providing warranty to the customers. Under those facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts establish…

Dy CIT CC 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Kerla Enviro Infrastructure Ltd., Coachin

Appeal are allowed

ITA 7333/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy.Cit, Central Circle- M/S Kerla Enviro 6(3), Room No. 1905, Vs. Infrastructure Ltd., 19Th Floor, Inside Fact Cochin, Air India Building, Divisi Ambalamugal, Nariman Point, Cochin, Mumbai – 400021 Kerala- 692303

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…on, therefore, there was no question of treating the same as a contingent liability and it ought to be allowed as a deduction. The assessee further relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Control India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC), wherein it was held that a provision can be recognized on a cumulative satisfaction of the following three conditions:- “(a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of t…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/424/2014HC Karnataka09 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…se. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the tribunal on substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'ROTORK CONTROLS INIDA (P.) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI', (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the claim with regard to the expenditure of Rs.2,07,60,000/- and a sum of RS.70,63,081/- were made before the Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and a remand report was also sought for by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe…

DCIT(Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. M/S Cmi Fpe Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2317/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shreekala Pardesi
Section 115JSection 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2317/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Large Tax Unit–1, Mumbai v/s M/s. CMI FPE Limited Plot no.64, Mehta House Road no.13, MIDC ……………. Respondent Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AAACF0252G Revenue by : Shri Shreekala Pardesi Assessee by : Shri Viraj Mehta Date of Hearing – 25.03.2021 Date of Order – 02.06.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner o…

Konecrances and Demag Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Konercranes Pvt.Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Ods), Circle -3 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 742/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)

…ner of Income Tax (Appeals), the ld.CIT(A) had rightly taken note of the legal position governing the allowability of provision for warranty expenditure as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rotork Controls India Ltd., reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC). However, the ld.CIT(A) while applying the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, had not considered the most relevant data and information i.e., terms and conditions laid down in the warranty policy for the company, what is the percentage of actual claims made for warranty claims in terms of the sales etc. T…

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1593/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1592 & 1593/Del/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 BSC C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., DCIT, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Vs Circle-5(1), New Delhi-110048. New Delhi. PAN-AADCB1505H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Amarjeet Singh, CA. Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR Date of Hearing 30.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : Both appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012- 13 & 2013-…

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1592/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1592 & 1593/Del/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 BSC C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., DCIT, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Vs Circle-5(1), New Delhi-110048. New Delhi. PAN-AADCB1505H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Amarjeet Singh, CA. Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR Date of Hearing 30.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : Both appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012- 13 & 2013-…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Sulzer India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, CO No.04/PUN/2021 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 246/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circl-6, Pune .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Sulzer India Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.304, At Post-Kondhapuri, Off Pune Nagar Road, Taluka- Shirur, Pune-412 209 Pan : Aaacs7876D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan
Section 37

…onsistent, scientific and systematic basis over a CO No.04/PUN/2021 A.Y.2013-14 period years and were allowable as expenditure. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Limited reported in 314 ITR 62 and contended that the determined liability on a scientific basis could not be regarded as a contingent liability and the provision made should be allowed u/s.37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The assessee also contended that the same provision is upheld by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in assessment year…

M/S. Senior India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2228/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 27i

…us, the provision for warranty for the subject assessment year was computed on scientific basis and accordingly should be allowed as deduction. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that since all the conditions such as existence of present obligation as a result of the past event as well as its resources probable will be to settle and reliable estimate can be made of the accounts of obligation as laid down by the Apex court pertaining to the allowance of provision for warranty as tax deductib…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…t order dated 31.07.2019 passed in assessment year 2004-05, dismissed the appeal of the revenue holding as under: “36. Even for the Asstt. Year 2002-03, while following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, the Tribunal deleted the addition and subsequently, similar addition was disallowed in respect of Asstt. Years 1999-2000, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2006-07, 2007-08 to 2009-10 by several orders of the Tribunal, which are to be found place in the paper book. On a reading of these orders, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is fairly settled an…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…t order dated 31.07.2019 passed in assessment year 2004-05, dismissed the appeal of the revenue holding as under: “36. Even for the Asstt. Year 2002-03, while following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, the Tribunal deleted the addition and subsequently, similar addition was disallowed in respect of Asstt. Years 1999-2000, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2006-07, 2007-08 to 2009-10 by several orders of the Tribunal, which are to be found place in the paper book. On a reading of these orders, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is fairly settled an…

Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7388/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15
Section 115J

…PC Ltd., ITA 356, 2015, P&H High Court (v) DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314, Gujarat HC (vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC), (vii) CIT v. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd., 251 ITR 15, Bombay HC (viii) M/s. Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC) (ix) Ircon International Limited, v. Add. CIT, ITA Nos. 1825/Del/2005, ITAT DELHI (x) Asahi India Glass Limited v. DCIT, ITA No.1637/Del/2014, ITAT DELHI (xi) M/s. Hil Lifecare Limited vs. ACIT in ITA No.ITA No.123/Coch/2017, 11.06.2018. (xii) The National Small Industries Corp Ltd. vs. Add. CIT., ITA No.1367/Del/2016, 25.02.2020. M/s. Pa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1), Indore vs. M/S Sunderdeep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 786/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was associated with the project since beginning. Para 3.21:- The CIT (A) while deleting the addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The facts of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotark Control India Pvt. Ltd., vs CIT (314 ITR 62) is totally distinguishable from the facts of present case. In that case, the issue before Hon’ble Apex Court was estimation of warranty expenses which was considered as integral part of sale price. “The provision for warranty was recognized as the assessee had present obligation as a result of past events” whereas in the present case, the assesse…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1), Indore vs. M/S Sunderdeep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 784/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was associated with the project since beginning. Para 3.21:- The CIT (A) while deleting the addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The facts of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotark Control India Pvt. Ltd., vs CIT (314 ITR 62) is totally distinguishable from the facts of present case. In that case, the issue before Hon’ble Apex Court was estimation of warranty expenses which was considered as integral part of sale price. “The provision for warranty was recognized as the assessee had present obligation as a result of past events” whereas in the present case, the assesse…