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 366,470 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

Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.582/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Lenovo (India) P. Ltd, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenaundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru 560 037 .. Appellant Pan : Aabci3372H V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -4(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. Chandrashekar, Cit Heard On : 19.05.2016 Pronounced On : 30.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Chandrashekar, CIT

Section 92C

…storical data of IBM was never brought before the lower authorities. Assessee had simply produced certain figures and relied on it without any back-up data. As per the Ld. DR, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (Pvt) Ltd vs CIT [(2009) 314 ITR 62] specifically stipulated that an assessee should prove the scientific IT(TP)A.582/Bang/2015 Page - 13 method followed by it for provisioning and it was the onus of the assessee to produce historical data to prove such method. Having not done that, as per the Ld. DR, it could not be said that assessee was following a scientific method. Thus accor…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3217/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit. Cir. 6(1), M/S Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Electric Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Appasahen Maratha Marg, Vs. Mumbai-20 Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacb2900K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Dcit. Cir. 6(1), 6Th Floor, Electric Mansion, Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Appasahen Maratha Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-20 Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacb2900K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi (AR)For Respondent: Dr. Prabhakar Reddy (DR)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 234C

…ke up the Ground no.1 which is in respect of deletion of disallowance of Rs. 61,53,000/- for provision of warranty. 7. AR of the assessee argued that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rotork Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (14 ITR 62 (SC) and order(s) of ITAT in assessee’s own case for AYs- 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. In Rotork Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the provision for warranty held as under: “13. In this case we are concerned with Product Warranties. To give an example of Product Warranties, a company dealing in computers gives warrant…

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-12, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1671/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 40

…/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 13 of 34 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Indi (Pvt.) Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62 cited by the ld. counsel for the assesese, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “a provision can be recognized when (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event, (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation, (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 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)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing 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.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta

Section 143(3)

…al to the amount that stands to be received (in future). Discounting, seeks as it does to scale down future sums to their present values, is a valid and well recognized concept, both in accountancy and law (refer: Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC); Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC)). The contention, however, is misplaced in the facts of the case. This is as, as afore-stated, compounding envisages a notional receipt, which is then reinvested at the stipulated rate, as we may seek to demonstrate per a table, giving rise to secondary, tertiary, etc. income streams, i.e.,…

Mahindra Automobile Distributor P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2601/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand-CIT

Section 254(1)

…deciding the appeal for AY.2008-09.DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.We find that while deciding the appeal for the earlier AY.,the Tribunal had sent back the matter to the file of the AO following the judgment of Rotork Controls India Pvt.Ltd.(314 ITR 62)of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Respectfully following the above,the issue is restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Gr.No.7 is partly allowed. 8.Next ground deals with deduction for provision for warranty made in earlier year and not reversed in the year under consideration. During the course of hearing before us,the AR stated that t…

Sulzer India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7324/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7324/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sulzer India Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gate No. 304, Income Tax – 8(3), V. Kondhapuri, Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, Tal- Shirur, Aayakar Bhavan, Dist. Pune – 412 209. M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs 7876D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234B

…assessee company’s books of account reflect the true and fair picture , and Revenue can compute correct income which is to be brought to tax. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC), Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Yum! Restaurants (I) P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 33 Taxmann.com 633( Delhi HC). The ld counsel also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT v. Hero Management Services Limited 360 ITR 68(Del), CIT v. Armour Consultants Private Limited , 355 ITR 418(Mad.) , CIT v.…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…the exact amount of liability is ascertained at a later date. We further find that action of the assessee in creating provision for warranty is also in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. vs. C.I.T. 314 ITR 62. Similarly, we find that relying on the above decision in the case of Rotork Controls the Hon’ble High court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Whirlpool of India 242 CTR 245 too, dismissed the grounds of the revenue for disallowing provision for warranty. Reliance by the assessee’s counsel in other case laws in this regard as mentioned above are also germ…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…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…

Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T. 14(1), Vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd., Mumbai. (Formerly M/S. Proagro Seed Co. P. Ltd. ), Bayer House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai.[Pan: Aaacp 3459M]

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

…e wishes to place reliance on the following rulings - Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (245 ITR 428) (SC) - Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs Their Workmen (73 ITR 53) (SC) - Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs CIT (37 ITR 1) (SC) - Rotork Controls India Private Limited vs CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC) - CIT vs Vintec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (278 ITR 337) [Delhi HC] • Without prejudice to the above submission, in case your honour considers to not allow the expense for special discount in the relevant year under consideration (i.e. FY 2003-04), we humbly request before your honour to grant deduction of special discount in the subsequent year…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Minerals Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA

ITA 1918/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Pathlaveth Peerya, CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…rder of the Assessing Officer, the contentions of the assessee carefully. The issue of provisions for warranty is a recurring issue. The Hon'ble Madras High Court, by relying on the decision of the Apex Court (in the case of Rotark Controls India Ltd v. CIT - 314 ITR 62), has held issue in favour of the assessee, vide TCA No.38 of 2010 dated 03.06.2013, in the assessee's own A.Y.2003- 04. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the High Court in the assessee's own case, I am of the opinion that the provision for warranty in the current assessment year 2005-06 is also allowable. The Assessing Officer is di…

Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 4120/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R.C. JainFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4120/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Kamat Hotels (I) Ltd. Addl. CIT-Range-8(2) 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 70-C, Nehru Road Vile Parle (E) Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400 099. Mumbai-400 020. PAN: AAACK 2912 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri M.Murli Assessee by: Shri R.C.…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 6, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2175/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 14A

…I.T.A. Nos. 2175 & 2176/KOL./2009 Assessment year: 2005-2006 & 2006-2007 & I.T.A. No. 2070/KOL/2009 Assessment Year: 2005-2006 Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 2175/KOL/ 2009 Assessment Year: 2005-2006 Allahabad Bank, Kolkata,..................................................Appellant 2, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN: AACCA 8464 F] -Vs.- Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,..........................Respondent Range-6, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7,…

Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Rittal India Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 583/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Manojkumar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 801JSection 80JSection 880J

…Rs.37,03,990/- on the ground that the assessee is not following scientific method and the provision is not based on the past experience. The AO held that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (314 ITR 62) is not applicable. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A) who, vide impugned order, allowed the appeal as regards the disallowance of Rs.20,44,3076/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The CIT(A), after examining additional evidence filed before him, calling for the remand report from the AO, allowed the claim holding that there was n…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Stanley Balck & Decker India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 967/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154

…tising and Marketing Promotion expenditure. The assessee company also contested the addition on account of provision for warranty as the same was allowable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 6. The Hon’ble DRP while passing the order u/s. 144C of the Act has stated that the contention of the assessee company that the selling expenses cannot be included in the AMP expenditure cannot be accepted as the assessee had failed to furnish specific information or details in respect of the claim and therefore rejected the objections. IT…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Stanley Black & Decker India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154

Exide Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 170/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, AR & Shri Bishan Kr.Seal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sachidananda Srivastava, CIT,DR

Section 43BSection 43D

…Officer on account of provision of warranty amounting to Rs. 10,19,48,2011- (being the excess amount over and above the actual expenditure), thereby violating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotak Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd reported in 314 ITR 62. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in facts as well as law in confirming the disallowance of provision for warranty provided by the appellant in its books of account on scientific basis, holding it to be contingent in nature, thereby defying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i…

Mahindra Automobile Distributor P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5185/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Shah &For Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 40

…g observation:- “22. It has been admitted by both the parties that this issue has been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rotrok Control India Pvt. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 (SC). 23. After hearing both the parties and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rotrok Control s India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we set aside the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer and restore the issue back to his file and direct him to deal and decide as per the direction given by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in…

M/S Housing & Urban Devlopment Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3366/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…e stamp duty being an ascertained liability, it was duly allowable in the year under consideration. He further relied on the judgment of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) and submitted that all the three elements mentioned in the said judgement, which constitute recognition of a provisional liability, were present in the case of the assessee. 7.2 On the other hand, ld. CIT (DR) relying on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that the charges on which the depreciation has been claimed are in the nature of c…

M/S Housing & Urban Devlopment Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3365/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1562/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A