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 367,164 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

East Coast Constructions and Industries Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 864/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Spicer India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 826/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 376/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…estimate of liability arising out of sales made during the relevant previous year. The ld. AR asserted that assessee qualifies the test laid down by Hon'ble Supreme A.Y. 2011-12 Court of India in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd Vs. CIT reported as 314 ITR 62. The DRP has granted relief to the assessee by following the law laid down in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd (supra). 5. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of TPO in making adjustment in respect of Royalty payment to Dana Corp., USA. However, the ld. DR fairly admitted th…

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 478/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manoj SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 143(3)Section 37

…d for confirming the order of CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue as well as the data placed before us for a decision in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62. On perusal of the said judgment, we find the Apex Court explained the conditions relating to the allowability of the expenses of provision for warranty. Relevant lines from the Held portion is extracted as under : “HELD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The present value of a contingent liability, like the warranty expense, if properly ascer…

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 377/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manoj SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 143(3)Section 37

…d for confirming the order of CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue as well as the data placed before us for a decision in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62. On perusal of the said judgment, we find the Apex Court explained the conditions relating to the allowability of the expenses of provision for warranty. Relevant lines from the Held portion is extracted as under : “HELD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The present value of a contingent liability, like the warranty expense, if properly ascer…

Spicer India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 376/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 376/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…estimate of liability arising out of sales made during the relevant previous year. The ld. AR asserted that assessee qualifies the test laid down by Hon'ble Supreme A.Y. 2011-12 Court of India in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd Vs. CIT reported as 314 ITR 62. The DRP has granted relief to the assessee by following the law laid down in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd (supra). 5. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of TPO in making adjustment in respect of Royalty payment to Dana Corp., USA. However, the ld. DR fairly admitted th…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Wpil Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2171/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 2171/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 250Section 35

…ade by the assessee of warranty charges by the ld. CIT(A). 5.1. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT , 314 ITR 62 (SC). In fact the table produced by the ld. CIT(A) at page 4 of its order shows that the estimate has be created on a 3 I.T.A. No. 2171/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. WPIL Ltd scientific basis, that there is an outflow by way of expenses and the estimate is a fair estimate. In fact during the year, the provision for warranty was Rs.85.12…

M/S Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I, .T Cir - 11, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1894/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s Philips India Limited -vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCP 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s Philips India Limited -vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCP 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri…

Philips Electronis India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

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

ITA 857/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s Philips India Limited -vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCP 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s Philips India Limited -vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCP 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri…

Firstsource Solutions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Icici Onesource Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2658/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2008 (Assessment Year 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2537/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2005-06) DCIT 12(2)(1)/DCIT M/s. Firstsource 6(2)/ACIT-5(2) Vs. Solutions Limited Room No. 223 5th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan Paradigm, Mindspace M.K. Road Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 064. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 4752/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 4053/Mum/2008 (Assessment Year 2004-05) I.T.A. No. 2658/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/s. Firstsource DCIT 6(…

Total Lubricants India Ltd ( Now Known As Total Oil India P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA o

ITA 7021/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n the bills are received from the respective parties. The said bills are booked in the subsequent year against provision account. In this regard, the Ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd vs CIT 314 ITR 62(SC ). The assessee also relied upon the decision of Calcutta Co Ltd 24 Total Lubricants vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1. 28. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Ld.AO was right in disallowing provision for schemes as the said liability is not accrued to the assessee which is evident from the fact that the assessee is creating provision and…

Addl CIT RG 24(1), Mumbai vs. Arun Damji Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 105/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Arun Damji Gada Vs. Acit 24(1) A-103, God Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Dhughala Bandra (E) Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aabpg3923F Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit 24(1) Vs. Shri Arun Damji Gada C-13 R/Nop, 503 A-103, God Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Bandra (E) Dhughala Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabpg3923F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Shri Arun Damji Gada Vs. ACIT 24(1) A-103, GOD Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Dhughala Bandra (E) Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 PAN/GIR No.AABPG3923F Appellant) .. Respondent) ACIT 24(1) Vs. Shri Arun Damji Gada C-13 R/NOP, 503 A-103, GOD Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Bandra (E) Dhughala Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 PAN/GIR No. AABPG3923F Appellant…

M/S. Senior India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 6823/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sonal Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6822 & 6823/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12) Senior India Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, 4th Floor, Rectangle No. 1, Circle-8(1), Behind Sheraton Hotel, New Delhi Commercial Complex D4, Saket, New Delhi PAN:AAAACI2419N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sonal Arora, CA Shri Ashita Chauhan, CA Revenue by: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/10/2017 Date of pronouncement 02.01.2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. Th…

M/S. Senior India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 6822/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sonal Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6822 & 6823/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 and 2011-12) Senior India Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, 4th Floor, Rectangle No. 1, Circle-8(1), Behind Sheraton Hotel, New Delhi Commercial Complex D4, Saket, New Delhi PAN:AAAACI2419N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sonal Arora, CA Shri Ashita Chauhan, CA Revenue by: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/10/2017 Date of pronouncement 02.01.2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. Th…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, while the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1029/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-II, Bengaluru
Section 37Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1024/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2005-06 Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd., Income Tax, LTU, Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bangalore. Ramanagar District, Bangalore – 562 109. PAN: AABCT 5590Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 1029/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Income Tax, LTU, Private Ltd., Bangalore. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanag…

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, while the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1024/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)-II, Bengaluru
Section 37Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1024/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2005-06 Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd., Income Tax, LTU, Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bangalore. Ramanagar District, Bangalore – 562 109. PAN: AABCT 5590Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 1029/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Income Tax, LTU, Private Ltd., Bangalore. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanag…

M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Del

ITA/31/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

Section 260ASection 43B

…ed. The liability of the Appellant to pay the additional customs duty was contingent upon the 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 ITA No.31/2005 Page 24 of 41 not be allowed as a deduction for the…

M/S. Lumax Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6961/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Lumax Industries Ltd., Jcit, Range- 4, B-85/86, Mayapuri Industrial New Delhi. Vs. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacl1126D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…le Delhi High Court in the case of Excel Industries reported in 358 ITR 195, he submitted that Rule of consistency should be followed. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 to the proposition that no addition can be made on account of provision for warranty. 19. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the lower authorities. 20. After hearing both the sides, we find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the assessment year 2008-09. The 15 Tribunal vide ITA No.445…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 17/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…khs claimed under the head provision for warranty because as per the Act mere provision cannot be allowed as deduction. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision in the cases Rotork Controls & ITA No.17/Mds/2017 India (P) Limited [2009] reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC), and CIT v Sony India (P) Limited [2007] reported in 160 taxman 397 (Delhi HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee. At the outset we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In the case Rotork Controls India P Ltd., relied by the Ld.CIT(A), the Hon’ble…

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3389/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…khs claimed under the head provision for warranty because as per the Act mere provision cannot be allowed as deduction. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision in the cases Rotork Controls & ITA No.17/Mds/2017 India (P) Limited [2009] reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC), and CIT v Sony India (P) Limited [2007] reported in 160 taxman 397 (Delhi HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee. At the outset we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In the case Rotork Controls India P Ltd., relied by the Ld.CIT(A), the Hon’ble…

Polyhose India Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3388/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, C/O. B. Sivaraman & Associates, Ca Corporate Circle-V(2), 10, E Block, Karthik Apartments, Chennai – 34. 46, Vijayaragava Road, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Vs M/S. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., F-37 To F-42, Corporate Circle-5(2), Sipcot Industrial Park, Chennai – 34. Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram - 602105 Pan: Aadcp4173F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 26.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.09.2017
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32

…khs claimed under the head provision for warranty because as per the Act mere provision cannot be allowed as deduction. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision in the cases Rotork Controls & ITA No.17/Mds/2017 India (P) Limited [2009] reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v CIT [2000] reported in 245 ITR 428 (SC), and CIT v Sony India (P) Limited [2007] reported in 160 taxman 397 (Delhi HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee. At the outset we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. In the case Rotork Controls India P Ltd., relied by the Ld.CIT(A), the Hon’ble…