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)

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…re us in the present appeal. 10.8 The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the provision for bonus card liability cannot be allowed as a deduction as the ratio of decision of Hon’ble :- 36 -: Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Vijayaraghavan submitted that the provisions for bonus card liability is not a contingent liability as per accounting standard 29, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 and in the…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…re us in the present appeal. 10.8 The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the provision for bonus card liability cannot be allowed as a deduction as the ratio of decision of Hon’ble :- 36 -: Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Vijayaraghavan submitted that the provisions for bonus card liability is not a contingent liability as per accounting standard 29, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 and in the…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1622/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…re us in the present appeal. 10.8 The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the provision for bonus card liability cannot be allowed as a deduction as the ratio of decision of Hon’ble :- 36 -: Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Vijayaraghavan submitted that the provisions for bonus card liability is not a contingent liability as per accounting standard 29, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 and in the…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1621/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…re us in the present appeal. 10.8 The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the provision for bonus card liability cannot be allowed as a deduction as the ratio of decision of Hon’ble :- 36 -: Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Vijayaraghavan submitted that the provisions for bonus card liability is not a contingent liability as per accounting standard 29, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 and in the…

Rm.K.V.Fabrics Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1594/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…re us in the present appeal. 10.8 The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the provision for bonus card liability cannot be allowed as a deduction as the ratio of decision of Hon’ble :- 36 -: Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Vijayaraghavan submitted that the provisions for bonus card liability is not a contingent liability as per accounting standard 29, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 and in the…

Rm.K.V.Silks Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…re us in the present appeal. 10.8 The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the provision for bonus card liability cannot be allowed as a deduction as the ratio of decision of Hon’ble :- 36 -: Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Vijayaraghavan submitted that the provisions for bonus card liability is not a contingent liability as per accounting standard 29, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers 245 ITR 428 and in the…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above

ITA 2176/KOL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Circle10(1), V/S. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd (India) Ltd., 2?1, Russel Street, 5Th Floor, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 3166 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Agarwallaa, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 16.08.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By Revenue, Which Reads As Under:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That The Customers Of The Assessee Have Settled The Accounts Permanently After Deducting The Liquidated Damages & They Have Refused To Pay The Amount Forever? Was Not He Wrong In Holding That The Assessee Company Has Extinguished Its Right To Receive Money From Its Clients? 2. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Entertainment Expenses Despite The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Documentary Evidence In Support Of Its Claim? Has Not The Ao The Right To Enquire Into Purpose Of Expenditure & Does The Doctrine That The Businessman Is The Best Judge Of Business Expediency Affect The Rights And

Section 143(3)

…decree of estimation. Therefore, the same cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the income of assessee. The AO in holding so, also relied in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (Pvt) Ltd. vs. CIT Chennai [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) and respectfully following the proposition, AO disallowed the provision of ₹63.63 lacs and added to the total income of assessee. 19. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that similar expense was claimed in AY 2012-13 and no disallowance was made. The assessee further submitted th…

Stovec Industries Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6949/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Stovec Industries Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Nidc, Nr. Lambha Village Income Tax (Osd), Range - Vs. Post Narol, Ahmedabad- 2(3), Mumbai 382405 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs7223D Asst. Commissioner Of Income Stovec Industries Ltd. Tax (Osd), Range -2(3), Nidc, Nr. Lambha Village Vs. Mumbai Post Narol, Ahmedabad- 382405 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna, Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: V Justin, DR

Section 143(3)

…herein, the provision utilized is reduced from the provision for warranty lying in the books of accounts assessee. In such circumstances, we have to go through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited vs. CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “Where there are a number of obligations (e.g., product warranties or similar contracts) the probability that an outflow will be required in settlement, is determined by considering the said obligations as a whole. In this connection, it may be noted that in the case of a manufacture an…

DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Stovec Industries Ltd, Gujrat

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6643/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Stovec Industries Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Nidc, Nr. Lambha Village Income Tax (Osd), Range - Vs. Post Narol, Ahmedabad- 2(3), Mumbai 382405 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs7223D Asst. Commissioner Of Income Stovec Industries Ltd. Tax (Osd), Range -2(3), Nidc, Nr. Lambha Village Vs. Mumbai Post Narol, Ahmedabad- 382405 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna, Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: V Justin, DR

Section 143(3)

…herein, the provision utilized is reduced from the provision for warranty lying in the books of accounts assessee. In such circumstances, we have to go through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited vs. CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “Where there are a number of obligations (e.g., product warranties or similar contracts) the probability that an outflow will be required in settlement, is determined by considering the said obligations as a whole. In this connection, it may be noted that in the case of a manufacture an…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Nik-San Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3314/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 3314/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष" Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Nik-San Engineering Income-Tax, Vs Company Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(2), 201-204, Vikas Chamber, Baroda Juntion Of Link & Marve Road, Malad West, Mumbai Pan : Aabcn 8963 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr Dr Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement In Court : 10/04/2018 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…in appellant's own case, similar facts were involved and hence, the disallowance made by the AO in that year had been upheld in the appellate order by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 (SC). In further appeal, the ITAT has deleted this addition as sustained by the CIT(A) by stating as follows: "5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. As per contract made between the parties, the assessee has to repair and maintain the transformers and other equipments. Accordingly, he had made provisions for l…

Balaji Homes, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 22(3), Mumbai

Appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 4490/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4490/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Balaji Homes Joint Commissioner Of Income C/O P.N.Subramanian & Co. Tax 22(3) 703-704,7Th Floor बनाम/ Mumbai Commodity Exchange Building Vs. Plot No.2,3 & 4, Sector 19 Vashi,Navi Mumbai-400 705 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aahfb-3601-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Ramesh Subramanian,Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / : 03/04/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ramesh Subramanian,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…xpenditure pertains to the relevant previous year. The appellant has not submitted any details to show that this amount relates to any obligation, matching which revenue has been recognized. 17. Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Rotork Controls India Pvt.ltd. [314 ITR 62], explained the term “provision”. “what is a provision? This is the question which needs to be answered. A provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable that an outflow of res…

Tetra Pak India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 521/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…reciating that the provision for warranty was properly ascertained and was not in the nature of Contingent Liability. 1.3 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in not following the below mentioned decisions: i) Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC) ii) CIT V Ericssion Communications P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 340 (Delhi) The learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in disallowing the claim of 2.1 bad debts of Rs.71,38,611/- which were written off and debited to Profit & Loss account of the year under assessment. The learned AO /DRP erred in not allowing the above claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 665/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…reciating that the provision for warranty was properly ascertained and was not in the nature of Contingent Liability. 1.3 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in not following the below mentioned decisions: i) Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC) ii) CIT V Ericssion Communications P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 340 (Delhi) The learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in disallowing the claim of 2.1 bad debts of Rs.71,38,611/- which were written off and debited to Profit & Loss account of the year under assessment. The learned AO /DRP erred in not allowing the above claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii…

Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 635/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…reciating that the provision for warranty was properly ascertained and was not in the nature of Contingent Liability. 1.3 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in not following the below mentioned decisions: i) Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC) ii) CIT V Ericssion Communications P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 340 (Delhi) The learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in disallowing the claim of 2.1 bad debts of Rs.71,38,611/- which were written off and debited to Profit & Loss account of the year under assessment. The learned AO /DRP erred in not allowing the above claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii…

D.C.I.T Cir - 7, Kolkata vs. M/S Bch Electric Ltd ( Foremerly M/S Bhartia Industires Limited), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1401/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1401/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Bch Electric Ltd. (Formerly Known M/S Bharti Industries Ltd.). [Pan: Aabcb 2076 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 96/Kol/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1401/Kol/2013) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Bch Electric Ltd. (Formerly -Vs- Dcit, Circle-7, Kolkata Known M/S Bharti Industries Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcb 2076 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…see in the earlier years. The Ld. CIT(A) by following order of his predecessor in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rotork Control India Ltd. reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC) held that the assessee had made provision for warranty on a scientific basis and accordingly is eligible for deduction for the same in the year of making the provision. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 6 7 ITA No.1401/Kol/2013& C.O.No. 96/Kol/2013 M/s BCH Electric Ltd. (formerly M/s Bhartia Industries…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kail Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5132/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm A.C.I.T-3(2)(2), M/S Kail Limited 171, बिधम/ R. No. 674 6Th Floor, 17Th Floor, C-Wing, Mittal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Court Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaack7717L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Chauhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…as soon as the sale was made and was an integral part of sale even if quantified and paid later. The assessee in order to support his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). However, the A.O after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee did not find favour with the same. The A.O holding a conviction that as the assessee had failed to substantiate on the basis of necessary documentary evidence that the liability was ascertained by following a scientific method, therefore, the reliance placed on the judgme…

DCIT Cir. 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5132/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5132 & 5133/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 &2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: ShriR. S. Samria, AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…isely possible at the time of incurring the liability would not make an ascertained liability a contingent. 9.3.4 Almost to the similar effect, there is another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422. In that case, the assessee-company was engaged in selling certain products. At the time of sale, the company provided a standard warranty that in the event of certain part becoming defective within 12 months from the date of commissioning or 18 months 19 I.T.A. No. 5132 & 5133/Mum/2016 People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd. from the dat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1433/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar

Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…essee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee for warranty claims on the basis of past experience is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Act. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, 245 ITR 428, the Supreme Court held that where the assessee has incurred expenditure which is more than the provision for warranty obligation made in the books of acc…

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1432/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar

Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…essee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee for warranty claims on the basis of past experience is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Act. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, 245 ITR 428, the Supreme Court held that where the assessee has incurred expenditure which is more than the provision for warranty obligation made in the books of acc…

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1431/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar

Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…essee claimed deduction u/s 37 of the Act for provision for future warranty. The Assessing Officer opined that provision for future warranty is contingent liability and cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62, held that the provision made by the assessee for warranty claims on the basis of past experience is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Act. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, 245 ITR 428, the Supreme Court held that where the assessee has incurred expenditure which is more than the provision for warranty obligation made in the books of acc…

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

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli

Rm.K.V.Fabrics Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Tirunelveli

Rm.K.V.Silks Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata

Stovec Industries Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Stovec Industries Ltd, Gujrat

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Nik-San Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Balaji Homes, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 22(3), Mumbai

Tetra Pak India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

D.C.I.T Cir - 7, Kolkata vs. M/S Bch Electric Ltd ( Foremerly M/S Bhartia Industires Limited), Kolkata

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kail Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT Cir. 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. People Interactive (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai