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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2825/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

…of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court under similar facts in the case of CIT v. Rotark Controls India Pvt. Ltd, 293 ITR 311 (Mad). However, the decision has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case, i.e Rotark Control India Ltd.v.CIT 314 ITR 62(SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that provision for warranty is an allowable expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act. Following the decision of the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the ground of the assessee. Against this, the Revenue has assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 40.3 We heard the rival submissions, perused…

Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 3669/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Harsh Shah & Paras Savla -ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Chandran - DR

Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “सी सी सी” खंडपीठ सी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/3669/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Case New Holland Construction JCIT (OSD) Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2(2) (Formerly known as L&T Case…

Beckman Colter India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6083/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6083/Mum./2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Beckman Coulter India Pvt. Ltd. Solitaire Corporate Park …….………. अऩीऱधथी / 3Rd Floor, Building No.Ii Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road Appellant Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 Pan – Aaccb7266L V/S Income Tax Officer ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Ward-8(1)(4), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 847/Mum./2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Beckman Coulter India Pvt. Ltd. Solitaire Corporate Park …….………. अऩीऱधथी / 3Rd Floor, Building No.Ii Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road Appellant Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 Pan – Aaccb7266L V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Range-8(1), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar A/W Shri Paras Savla. Shri Keerthiya Sharma & Shri Pratik Poddar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 28.09.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain

…. The Assessing Officer had added back the amount of book profit by alleging that no supporting documentary evidence was submited with regard to provisions for warranty by the assessee. He observed, in the case of CIT v/s Rotork Controls India P. Ltd., [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), provision was allowed as it was on the basis of percentage of turnover on past experience. 29. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the addition by observing that this being the first year of operation by the assessee, it cannot be said that the provision created is on the basis of past experience. 30. Learned Authorised Repre…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medicals India (P) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5145/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Makwana, D.RFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Ved, A.R

…o.5145/Mum/11 A.Y. 06-07 [DCIT vs. M/s. Maquet Medicals India Pvt. Ltd.) Page 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62)(SC), even though the facts of the assessee’s case are distinguishable from the facts of the above cited case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to maintain systematic data in support of its claim for provision of warranty.” 2. Assessee company is…

ACIT 8(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medicals India (P) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5144/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Makwana, D.RFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Ved, A.R

….5144/Mum/11 A.Y. 07-08 [DCIT vs. M/s. Maquet Medicals India Pvt. Ltd.) Page 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62)(SC), even though the facts of the assessee’s case are distinguishable from the facts of the above cited case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to maintain systematic data in support of its claim for provision of warranty.” 2. Before us, at the o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 6142/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…A no. 2195/Del/2008 wherein vide order dated 8.10.2010, the Tribunal had set aside the order of CIT passed u/s 263 in respect of provision for warranty after following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 (SC). 5. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the department is in appeal before us and has taken following ground of appeal: “Whether ld. CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,55,57,990/- made by the AO on account of payment under AMC contract”. 5.1. Brief facts apropos…

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5898/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5651/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 321/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5907/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT

ITA 1603/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. Pravin Kishore Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, JCIT

…ed one. IT(TP)A.1603, 1722/Bang/2013, CO.14/Bang/2016 Page - 43 48. Argument of assessee before the CIT (A) was that it was an ascertained liability. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd, v. CIT [314 ITR 62]. Further as per the assessee, during the relevant previous year actual warranty expenditure came to Rs.20,60,000/-. Ld. CIT (A) was of the opinion that there was no objective or scientific study nor any documented experience based on which the estimate was made. CIT (A) noted that assessee had relied on just one year data for justifying the wa…

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/576/2015HC Karnataka21 Jul 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.576 OF 2016 BETWEEN: BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD., OFF TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPUR P.O. BANGALORE-560022 REP. HEREIN BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER MR. SUJOY DASGUPTA. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-11(2) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME…

Apple India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 824/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’ Ub City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacv 7566 R Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…The Principal Commissioner, after considering the above submissions held that the AO had not examined whether provision for warranty was made on a scientific basis as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Control India Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT (314 ITR 62). The Principal Commissioner held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, he set aside the issue of deductibility of warranty provision to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after affording due opportunity to the assessee-company. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, assess…

Valmet Chennai Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 551/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D. Karunakara Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.S Prabhakar, Partner, CAFor Respondent: Shri Joe Sebastian, CIT

…ld. Departmental 4. Representative submitted that the provision for warranty has to be worked out on scientific basis by taking into consideration of the past experience. This is what exactly held by the Apex Court in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62. There cannot be any presumption that merely because the assessee has spent 83% of provision for warranty, the entire provision was spent for the purpose of executing the warranty. Referring to the alternative submission of the ld. Representative for the assessee, the ld. DR submitted that since admittedly the assessee incurred expenditure of ` 1…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…i) whether the system adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable or is adopted only with a view to reducing the incidence of taxation.“ 26.3.10 Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 wherein it has been held that:- “17. At this stage, we once again reiterate that a liability is a present obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount of obligation.” 26.3.11 The Learned AR submitted that the inv…

Winergy Drive Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1720/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1720/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Winergy Drive Systems India The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited (Merged With Vs. Income Tax, Siemens Ltd.), Corporate Taxation, Company Circle Iii(3), 3Rd Floor, 130 Pandurang Budhkar Chennai . Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. [Pan: Aaacw5466B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(3)

…ture is crystallized, the assessee is not entitled to claim the 12 I.T.A. No.1720/M/14 deduction in respect of such expenditure. The ld. AR relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. & Ors. V. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62, wherein, it was held as under: “Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the valve actuators, manufactured by the assessee, were sophisticated goods and statistical data indicated that every year some of these were found defective; that valve actuator being a sophisticated item no customer was prepared to buy a valve actuator without…

M/S. Showa India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.(Tp) No.166/Del.2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09) M/S. Showa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 8(1), 23-32, Sector 58, New Delhi Faridabd, Haryana-121002 Gir / Pan :Aabce5725G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 271Section 92ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(TP) No.166/Del.2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09) M/s. Showa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), 23-32, Sector 58, New Delhi Faridabd, Haryana-121002 GIR / PAN :AABCE5725G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Mongia, CA Respondent by :Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 17.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the orde…

Cmi Fpe Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2334/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2334/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Cmi Fpe Limited Asst. Cit-Ltu, World Trade बनाम/ Centre-I, 28Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mehta House, Plot No. 64, Road No. 13, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 005 Vs. Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf 0252 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. K. Ved ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Pandian सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.03.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.12.2012, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 19.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is With Regard To The Confirmation Of The Disallowance Toward Provision For Loss On Contracts Made By The Assessee In Its’ Accounts For Rs.125.39 Lacs. The Assessee Is A Domestic Company & Its Principal

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri S. Pandian

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145

…, so that the principle involved would be that the estimate or assessment as made is explainable with reference to the available information. 3.2 The Revenue misdirects itself when it, relying on the decision Rotork Controls India Private Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), refers to the statement of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of claim for deduction qua a liability. The two, i.e., a ‘liability’ and ‘loss’, though para materia from the stand-point of prudence, may not be so as regards provision therefor. The provision of loss would be justified on a factual basis to arrive at the conclusion that th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/912/2008HC Karnataka07 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

…: “Regarding Question No.1: 4. Sri. K. V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the revenue placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rotork 23 Controls India (P)Ltd., vs Commissioner of Income Tax reported in ((2009)314 ITR 62 ) wherein, the assessee herein was also a party would strongly contend that, what is a provision is elaborately considered by the Apex Court and the parameters are set-out by the Apex Court to examine the recognition of provision for the purposes of the Act. The three conditions to be satisfied for the recognition of the provision are:…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/890/2008HC Karnataka07 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260