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

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.330/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Nike India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of No.701, The Millenia, Tower-B Income-tax Murphy Road, Ulsoor Circle-5(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 804/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nike India Private Limited…

M/S.Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.330/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Nike India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of No.701, The Millenia, Tower-B Income-tax Murphy Road, Ulsoor Circle-5(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 804/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nike India Private Limited…

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 804/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.330/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Nike India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of No.701, The Millenia, Tower-B Income-tax Murphy Road, Ulsoor Circle-5(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 804/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nike India Private Limited…

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 330/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.330/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Nike India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of No.701, The Millenia, Tower-B Income-tax Murphy Road, Ulsoor Circle-5(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 804/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nike India Private Limited…

M/S. Bain & Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3541/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

…n the review of the financial statements it can be seen that even the statutory auditors have not mentioned this provision as a contingent liability. Referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC) he submitted that the provision made cannot be classified as a contingent liability. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assesee be allowed. 7 M/s. Bain & Company India Private Ltd. vs. DCIT 7. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) . He submit…

DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hdfc Sales Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Ground No.1 of appeal is dismissed

ITA 852/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumardcit- 1(1)(2) M/S Hdfc Sales Pvt. Ltd. 579, Aayakar Bhavan, 169, Raman House, H.T. Parekh M.K. Road, Vs. Marg, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabch4278H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary (Cit-Dr) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 37Section 40

…A No. 8427/Mum/2010 dated 17.09.2014), " Pfizer Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 1667/Mum/2010, " CIT Vs Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. [2011] Taxman 94 (Delhi HC), " Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC), " Rotrock Controls India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62 (SC), " CIT Vs Hindtron Services Ltd. (328 ITR 263 (SC) and " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295 (SC). 7. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and carefully gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have also deliberated on various case laws cited by ld. Representative of the parties. The AO disallowed the prov…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Amco Batteries Ltd

Appeal are dismissed

ITA/400/2012HC Karnataka25 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…3 holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction when excess provision towards warranty made in the previous years is not offered to tax by reversing the entries as laid down by the Apex Court in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 314 ITR 62? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment year 2008-09 declaring income of Rs.2,17,18,047/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was selected for scrutiny. Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assesse…

Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range (10)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1245/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Thyssenkrupp Industrial DCIT Range 10(3) Room No.451, 4th Floor, Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uhde House, L.B.S. Marg, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Vikhroli (W), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400083. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACU1416H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue by: Shri Rahul Raman (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 09/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख…

Patel L&T Consortium, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5285/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5285 & 5286/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri VipulFor Respondent: ShriRahul Raman, DR
Section 143Section 143(2)

…with the experience of the partners of this consortium, it is decided to provide for the contingencies at the rate of 3% on the contract revenue. Further, assessee relied on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Private Limited (314 ITR 62). The assessing officer after considering the submissions of the assessee rejected the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee based on percentage of completion method to the extent of Rs. 4,80,11,343/–. 5 I.T.A. No. 5285, 5286, 5352, 5353/Mum/2016 M/s Patel L & T Consortium 6. Aggrieved with the above ord…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

…are as follows (page 623 of 25 ITR (Trib)) : "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 v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable with full force to the deductibility of the discount on incurring of liability on the rendition of service by the employees. The factum of the employees becoming entitled to exercise options at the end of the vesting period and it is only then that the actual amount of discount w…

M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3865/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 40Section 92C(2)

…are as follows (page 623 of 25 ITR (Trib)) : "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 v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable with full force to the deductibility of the discount on incurring of liability on the rendition of service by the employees. The factum of the employees becoming entitled to exercise options at the end of the vesting period and it is only then that the actual amount of discount w…

Uhde India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 1904/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodthyssenkrupp Indutrial Solutions (India) Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax 10(3); Private Limited (Formerly Known As Uhde India Mumbai. Vs. Private Limited); Uhde House, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 0883 Pan – Aaacu1446H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sshri Niraj Sheth, Darshti Naik & HarmuzdFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chandra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…(formerly known as Uhde India Pvt Limited) – ITA No. 1904/Mum/2012 – A.Y 2007-08 1 Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Private Limted Vs. Addl. CIT10(3), Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Thyssenkrupp Indutrial Solutions (India) Additional Commissioner Of Income-tax 10(3); Private Limited (formerly known as Uhde India Mumbai. Vs. Private Limited); Uhde House, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 0883 PAN – AAACU1446H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: S/sshri Niraj Sheth, Darshti Naik & H…

Addlcit, Special Range-2, New Delhi vs. Continental India Ltd., Meerut

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5450/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv
Section 143(3)

…Year: 2011-12 earlier assessment year and such an addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal No.580/14-15/IT/del/2015-16 vide order dated 15/10/2015 while following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd vs. CIT 314 ITR 62. Since the facts are similar, Ld. CIT(A) while following the decision of his predecessor allowed the contention of the assessee and directed the deletion of the addition. 7. It is the argument on behalf of the Revenue that the decision of various courts including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have already been considered and reply dat…

Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4866/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Wockhardt Ltd, Vs Additional Commissioner Of Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Income Tax Range -10(1), Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400051 M.K. Road, Mumbai -20 Pan:Aaacw2472M Appellant Respondednt

Section 14ASection 35Section 35fSection 92BSection 92C

…s CIT (supra). In other alternative submissions the ld AR submits that liability ascertained by actuary cannot be considered as unascertained liability for the purpose of book profit under section 115JB and relied on decision of Rotork Controls India (P) ltd (314 ITR 62 SC) and CIT Vs Jet Airways [2016 (2016 Taxman 572 Bombay)] 32. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the order of the tax authorities below. The assessing officer while computing book profit added back provision of gratuity of Rs. 45,39,118/- without discussion or issuing show cause notice to the assessee. During the first…

M/S. Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…oney which might become expenditure on the happening of an event is not IT(TP)A No. 2444/Bang/2019 Page 26 of 36 expenditure. However in respect of provision for warranty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 held that provision for warranty liability cannot always be regarded as contingent liability and laid down the following principles in coming to the conclusion whether the liability can be said to be contingent or actual liability:- (1) A provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kellogg India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4452/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2007-08
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

…ovision over the actual expenditure comes to 14.31% which is not unreasonable or excessive. Considering all these facts, the provision made cannot be said to be on account of unascertained liability. In the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of an assessee making provision for estimated expenditure towards warranty observed that provision is a liability which can be measured only by using substantial degree of estimation. Such provision is recognized when a assessee had a present obligation as a result of past events, and i…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “"स” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L.Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.217 to 219/Kol/2018 & C.O No.94-96/Kol/2018 (a/o ITA No.217-219/Kol/2018) Assessment Years :2011-12 to 2013-14 DCIT, Central Cricle-2(1), M/s Paharpur Cooling 3rd Floor, Aayakar Towers Ltd., 81N. Bhawan, Poorva E.M. Bye Diamaond Harbour Pass, 110, Shanti Pally, Road, Kolkata-700 027 Kolkata-107 बनाम V/s. M/s Paharpur Cooling DCIT, Central Circle- 2(1), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Towers Ltd., 8/1/B, Diamond Harbour Road, Bhawan, Poor…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “"स” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L.Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.217 to 219/Kol/2018 & C.O No.94-96/Kol/2018 (a/o ITA No.217-219/Kol/2018) Assessment Years :2011-12 to 2013-14 DCIT, Central Cricle-2(1), M/s Paharpur Cooling 3rd Floor, Aayakar Towers Ltd., 81N. Bhawan, Poorva E.M. Bye Diamaond Harbour Pass, 110, Shanti Pally, Road, Kolkata-700 027 Kolkata-107 बनाम V/s. M/s Paharpur Cooling DCIT, Central Circle- 2(1), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Towers Ltd., 8/1/B, Diamond Harbour Road, Bhawan, Poor…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “"स” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L.Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.217 to 219/Kol/2018 & C.O No.94-96/Kol/2018 (a/o ITA No.217-219/Kol/2018) Assessment Years :2011-12 to 2013-14 DCIT, Central Cricle-2(1), M/s Paharpur Cooling 3rd Floor, Aayakar Towers Ltd., 81N. Bhawan, Poorva E.M. Bye Diamaond Harbour Pass, 110, Shanti Pally, Road, Kolkata-700 027 Kolkata-107 बनाम V/s. M/s Paharpur Cooling DCIT, Central Circle- 2(1), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Towers Ltd., 8/1/B, Diamond Harbour Road, Bhawan, Poor…