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)

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ed. The liability of the Appellant to pay the additional customs duty was contingent upon the 38 importers being called upon to pay the same. Reference was made by this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) where three conditions were laid down while considering where a provision made for future claims against warrantees was allowable as a deduction. On the facts of the case, this Court held that subject liability was a contingent liability in respect thereof could not be allowed as a deduction for the AY in question. Specific to Section 43B,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 515/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…e facts and on the law, the Ld. DRP was right in deleting the addition of Rs.42,60,057/- made by way of disallowance of Warranty Expenses while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (Supreme Court) ? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Shri Vishal Kalra appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction amounting to Rs.1,80,22,920/- in respect of Corporate Cost Allocation. The assessee received various specialized services from Eaton T…

Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 476/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…e facts and on the law, the Ld. DRP was right in deleting the addition of Rs.42,60,057/- made by way of disallowance of Warranty Expenses while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (Supreme Court) ? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Shri Vishal Kalra appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction amounting to Rs.1,80,22,920/- in respect of Corporate Cost Allocation. The assessee received various specialized services from Eaton T…

Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 506/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…e facts and on the law, the Ld. DRP was right in deleting the addition of Rs.42,60,057/- made by way of disallowance of Warranty Expenses while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (Supreme Court) ? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Shri Vishal Kalra appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction amounting to Rs.1,80,22,920/- in respect of Corporate Cost Allocation. The assessee received various specialized services from Eaton T…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 493/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…e facts and on the law, the Ld. DRP was right in deleting the addition of Rs.42,60,057/- made by way of disallowance of Warranty Expenses while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (Supreme Court) ? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Shri Vishal Kalra appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction amounting to Rs.1,80,22,920/- in respect of Corporate Cost Allocation. The assessee received various specialized services from Eaton T…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amtech Electronics (India) Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 629/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri T. P. Hemani & P.B. Parmar,AR

Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. No: 629 & 1124/AHD/2015 & Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), V/S M/s Amtech Electronics Ahmedabad (India) Ltd. E-6, GIDC Electronics Zone, Gandhinagar-382028 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCA 2793A Appellant by : Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri T. P. Hemani & P.B. Parmar,AR (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 19 -07-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15-10-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. These three appeals have been preferred by the Department ag…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amtech Electronics (India) Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1124/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri T. P. Hemani & P.B. Parmar,AR

Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. No: 629 & 1124/AHD/2015 & Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), V/S M/s Amtech Electronics Ahmedabad (India) Ltd. E-6, GIDC Electronics Zone, Gandhinagar-382028 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCA 2793A Appellant by : Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri T. P. Hemani & P.B. Parmar,AR (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 19 -07-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15-10-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. These three appeals have been preferred by the Department ag…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…rinciple, only those costs are recognized in the profit and loss account which have direct association with the earning of income. The above matching principle has also been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT: 314 ITR 62 @ 73, while upholding deduction of warranty liability provided in the books, as under: "13. In this case' we are concerned with Product Warranties. To give an example of Product Warranties, a company dealing in computers gives warranty for a period of 36 months from the date of supply. The said company considers following options: (a) account for…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sulzer India Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 722/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 722/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav

Section 271Section 37

…ore the CIT(A). During First Appellate proceedings, apart from giving the calculation on the basis of internal evaluation, the assessee relied heavily on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. reported as 314 ITR 62 wherein it was held that “the present value of a contingent liability, like warranty expense, if properly ascertained and discounted on actuarial basis, can be an item of deduction u/s.37 of the I.T.Act.” He also referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co.(P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) reported as 37 IT…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 762/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…izing and making the provision for marketing expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Indi (Pvt.) Limited – vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a provision can be recognized when (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, (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the…

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 760/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…izing and making the provision for marketing expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Indi (Pvt.) Limited – vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a provision can be recognized when (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, (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the…

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T, Range-12, Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2151/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…izing and making the provision for marketing expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Indi (Pvt.) Limited – vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a provision can be recognized when (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, (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the…

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T, Range-12, Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2150/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…izing and making the provision for marketing expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Indi (Pvt.) Limited – vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a provision can be recognized when (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, (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the…

DCIT/Cir-12/Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2114/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…izing and making the provision for marketing expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Indi (Pvt.) Limited – vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a provision can be recognized when (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, (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the…

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd, Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2113/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…izing and making the provision for marketing expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Indi (Pvt.) Limited – vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a provision can be recognized when (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, (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Thomson Holdings (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 841/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Vishal Kalra & S.S. Tomar

Section 143(3)

…t scientific and appears to be on higher side and accordingly disallowed the said provision. 15 I.T.A. No.2513/DEL/2013 15. Ld. CIT(A) following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) held that the said provision is not in the nature of unascertained or contingent liability is deductible as business expenditure. 16. Before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the amount set aside on account of warrant expenses was not ascertained or contingent liability; rather it was entirely based on invoices/debit notes which…

M/S. Thomson Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1093/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Vishal Kalra & S.S. Tomar

Section 143(3)

…t scientific and appears to be on higher side and accordingly disallowed the said provision. 15 I.T.A. No.2513/DEL/2013 15. Ld. CIT(A) following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) held that the said provision is not in the nature of unascertained or contingent liability is deductible as business expenditure. 16. Before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the amount set aside on account of warrant expenses was not ascertained or contingent liability; rather it was entirely based on invoices/debit notes which…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. M/S Nokia India Ltd

Appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs

ITA/955/2018HC Delhi31 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260A

…ial basis. Reference was made to ratio in Rotork Control India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ITA 955/2018 Page 3 of 9 Tax (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). The Delhi High Court in the respondent-assessee's own case in ITA Nos.841/2009 and 842/2009 relating to Assessment Year 2001-02, has affirmed the order of the Tribunal deleting the same disallowance made by the Assessing Officer as unjustified and contrary to law. 5. Counsel for Revenue has drawn our attention to the table showing…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. M/S Nokia India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs

ITA-955/2018HC Delhi31 Aug 2018

Section 260A

…nce was made to ratio in Rotork Control India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income 2018:DHC:5609-DB ITA 955/2018 Page 3 of 9 Tax (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). The Delhi High Court in the respondent-assessee's own case in ITA Nos.841/2009 and 842/2009 relating to Assessment Year 2001-02, has affirmed the order of the Tribunal deleting the same disallowance made by the Assessing Officer as unjustified and contrary to law. 5. Counsel for Revenue has drawn our attention to the table showing…

Haworth (India) Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 109/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj More

Section 143(3)

…tific basis for creating the provision. The provision for warranty has not been made in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of the India in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 314 ITR 62. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has assailed the assessment order and directions of DRP on two grounds : i. Disallowance of Management Service Fees Rs.6,51,28,097/- ii. Disallowance of provision for warranty Rs.11,82,576/-. Management…

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

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune

Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Eaton Fluid Power Ltd., Pune

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amtech Electronics (India) Ltd., Gandhinagar

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amtech Electronics (India) Ltd., Gandhinagar

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sulzer India Ltd., Pune

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T, Range-12, Kolkata

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T, Range-12, Kolkata

DCIT/Cir-12/Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd, Kolkata

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Thomson Holdings (India) Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Thomson Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. M/S Nokia India Ltd

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. M/S Nokia India Pvt. Ltd

Haworth (India) Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax