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 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 367,154 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 115JB Section 14A Section 147 Section 234C Section 40(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 35d enduring benefit section 32(1)put to use block of assets section 40(a)(i)intangible assets mercantile system of accounting section 35 section 37(1)section 32 revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Chennai vs. Faively Transport India Ltd., Hosur

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 1924/CHNY/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Gopikrishna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

…ecisions of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Rotark Controls India Ltd., 293 ITR 311 (Mad), the AO disallowed this claim. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Rotark Controls India Ltd, vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC), the CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue filed this appeal pleading that the Apex Court held that only provisions for warranty arrived on a scientific basis is allowable and not any lump sum provision (Uncertain liability). The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions is not made scientifically. In order to apply t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4647/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 I. T. Appeal Nos. 4642,4643,4644 & 4645/Del/2014 AND I. T. Appeal Nos. 4647,4648,4649,4650 & 4651/Del/2014. Assessment Years : 2006-07,2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES: “E” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. Appeal Nos. 4642, 4643, 4644 & 4645/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Micromax Informatics Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of C/o. Ved Jain & Associates, Vs. Income Tax, 100, Babar Road, Opp. Hotel Lalit, Central Circle : 16, New Delhi – 110 035. New Delhi. PAN :…

M/S. Micromax Informatics Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4642/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

Addl.C.I.T. RG.16, Mumbai vs. Total Petroleum India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6795/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R C Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Assessment Year : 2000-01 The Addl Cit Range 16, Total Petroleum India Limited., 3Rd Floor, Leela Galleria, Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 Pan Aaact4597J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M C Omi NingshenFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Sheth

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri R C Sharma, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM Assessment Year : 2000-01 The Addl CIT Range 16, Total Petroleum India Limited., 3rd Floor, Leela Galleria, Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 PAN AAACT4597J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen Respondent By : Shri Neeraj Sheth Date of Hearing :03.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2017 O R D E R Per R C Sharma, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) dated 25.07.2011, for the assessment year 2000-01,…

Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Murshidabad vs. CIT -14, Kolkata, Murshidabad

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 877/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 877/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank -Vs.- C.I.T., Kol-14, Murshidabad Kolkata. [Pan : Aaalb 0462 D) (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2015 Of Cit- Kol-14, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act.).

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…d upheld by Supreme Court. That as the liability was an ascertained liability as per the wage revision which took place in the A. Y.2010-11 it should be allowed as per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rotork Contrals India {P} Ltd. Vs.CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 (SC) b) The assessee provided Rs. 1,30,00,000/- for meeting its liability of leave encashment of superannuation during the F. Y. 2009-10 and that out of the said amount Rs.49,86,186/- was paid out within 15th October, 2010 and the balance amount of Rs.72,64,923/- was paid within March, 2011, therefore, even if the amount of Rs. 72,64,923/- is dis…

Ford India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. Dy CIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017

Section 143(3)

…ision has been followed by the company consistently over the years. However, the AO was not convinced with the explanation offered by the assessee and also distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotoritc controls India Pvt.. Ltd., 314 ITR 62 (SC) and disallowed the expenditure and added back to the income. The assessee filed objections before the DRP and the DPR confirmed the addition proposed by the AO. Accordingly, the AO made the addition as proposed in the draft Assessment Order. Against the order of AO/DRP, the assessee is on appeal before us. 7.1 The Ld.AR made arguments at…

Ford India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. Dy CIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2344/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017

Section 143(3)

M/S. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1833/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiteradata India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Tower- Circle-Ii, 4A, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar

Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 92C

…09 wherein vide para No. 10.8, coordinate bench has set aside the issue back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for verifying the provision in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Rotork controls India private limited versus CIT 314 ITR 62. In view of this, we also set aside this ground of appeal to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to decide it in accordance with the order of the coordinate bench. In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction. 28. Ground No. 7 of the appeal of the assessee is with respect to the disallowance of depreci…

M/S. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 28Section 36Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…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 from the date of dispatch, whichever is earlier, the company would rectify or rep…

Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cen.Cir.41, Mumbai

In the result of appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6930/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…amount. The AO confronted the assessee as to why the same should not be disallowed being unascertained and contingent liability. In response, assessee placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd vs CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC) wherein it was held that provision for warranty estimated on scientific basis is not unascertained liability, since it takes care of the obligations of the assessee to be discharged in future but accrued during the year. Therefore, it can be claimed as deduction against the income booked during the year. However, AO was not satisfied with the…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Mayura Infrastructure Development Company, Kishangarh

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

ITA 873/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153A

…016 8 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v/s Om Metals and Minerals (P) Ltd., Kota(DB income Tax Reference No. 16/1995) (As per Annexure 8) 7. (2015)278 CTR Reports CIT vs Sane & Doshi Enterprises (Bom.) 8. Rotork Contrals India(P) Ltd, V/s CIT(2009)314 ITR 62(SC). In the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It…

Hirotec India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3489/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.Duraipandian, JCITFor Respondent: 23.02.2017

…evidence regarding the ascertainment of liability on actuarial basis. Therefore, the AO distinguished the facts of the assessee’s case with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. vs. CIT, Chennai reported in 314 ITR 62(SC) and disallowed the amount of Rs.59,46,409/-. :- 3 -: 3.0 The assessee went on appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed a relief of Rs.9,46,409/- as against the provisions of Rs.59.46 and confirmed the balance amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs. 4.0 Aggrieved by the Order of…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir E (Erstwhile ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 633/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Motilal Oswal Securities Vs. Acit Cc 3, Mumbai – 400 Ltd., Motilal Oswal Tower 020 Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel Ist Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3654Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit- Cc-3(3), Mumbai - Vs. M/S.Motilal Oswal Securities 400020 Ltd., Motilal Oswal Tower Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel Ist Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3654Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Vijay Mehta Revenue By Mr. Saurabh Rai

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 73

…ncome tax Act which is obligatory on part of the assessee to follow in order to compute the total income. f. The appellant relies on the following decisions ;- CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. 312 ITR 254 (SC) Rotork Control India P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrain I.T.No. 4404 & 1883/Mum/2004. 9.3. The appellant further submitted that the said losses' has been incurred in the course of the business of trading in shares M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., wherein it hedges position in the 'cash segment with that in the futures segment. Accordingly, these losses would also not be cons…

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Years 2007-08 as well

ITA 511/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri P. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(9)

…ng/2011 appeal vide order dt.16.3.2012 in ITA No.1457/Bang/2010 remanded this issue to the assessing authority to reconsider its affairs in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotok Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62. The issue was again brought before this Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and vide its order dt.30.5.2016, the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee in IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2015. We further note that this issue was again considered by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2011-12 vide order dt.21.10…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan vs. Medirays Corporation, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 190/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

…to the actual present obligation as a result of past events. Even though the assessee placed reliance on the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (2000)(245 ITR 428) and Rotork Controls India OVT Ltd Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62), yet the AO took the view that these case laws are distinguishable with the facts of the assessee’s case, i.e., the above said companies had made provisions on the basis of their historical trends and further provided for only when the customers made the claim. With these observations, the AO disallowed entire claim of Rs.1,15,35,985/-. 3 M/s. M…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., 205, Kushal Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacc0292M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K. Chadha, Ca Date Of Hearing 28.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07/06/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv (In Short “Cit-A”) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.5614565/- On Account Of Contract Receipts, Ignoring The Fact That During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Company Failed To Justify Its Abnormally Low G. P. Rate Of 18.16% In Current Year From 28.9% Last Year. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.14591310/- On Account Of Payment Of Lurgi Life Science(Lls) Germany For Drawing Design Charges, Ignoring The Fact That Benefit Of Enduring Nature Was Drawn By The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the financial statement the amount, the expenditure was ascertained. We find that the Ld. CIT-A has allowed the claim of the assessee following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court 12 AY: 2007-08 in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited (2009) 314 ITR 62. The relevant part of the impugned order is extracted as under: “23. It is clear from the order of the Supreme court that provision for warranty is an ascertained liability as long as it is based on actuarial valuation. This is done on historical cost and on experience of the assessee. Thus, there can be no scope for any disallowance. Assessee su…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Ranka Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above direction

ITA 787/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 28Section 37

…ferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Reliance was placed on various decisions of the ITAT including the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely Rotork ITA 787/JP/2016_ 3 ITO Vs M/s Ranka Colonizers P Ltd. Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) for the proportion that any provision made for the obligation of expenses to be incurred in future against the current year’s sale is allowable expenses. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (2009) 245 ITR 428 (SC) for the proposition that if the business liability has arisen in…

M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Puducherry

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

ITA 2031/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2029 To 2031/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ed and by merely observing that a claim of deduction had been made in relation to provision for warranty. 6. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts and mis-interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Rotork Controls Private Limited Vs CIT (314 ITR 62) to deny the claim of deduction in respect of provision for warranty (despite the Supreme Court decision being in favour of the Appellant). 7. The learned CIT(A)/AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the provision for warranty amounting to Rs 8,124,477/- despite the Appellant having created the provision on a scientific and reasonable…

M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Puducherry

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

ITA 2030/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2029 To 2031/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147

M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Puducherry

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

ITA 2029/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2029 To 2031/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147