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 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

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…e above claim is not supported by the actual valuation and hence, he disallowed ₹148,43, 01,915/-. The ld CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax 314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the provision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources and can be based on reliable estimation of such obligation then the liability incurred by the assessee company is allowable. He further held that the methodology to determine the liability is also certified by…

Manju Dudala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.654 & 665/Hyd./2023 & ITA.No.648/Hyd./2024 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 M/s. Eenadu Television The ACIT, Circle-5(1), Private Limited, Hyderabad – 500 004. vs. Hyderabad – 501 212. Telangana. PAN AACCM7226P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.563/Hyd./2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 M/s. Eenadu Television The ACIT, Circle-5(1), Private Limited, Hyderabad – 500 004. vs. Hyderabad – 501 212. Telangana. PAN AACCM7226P (Appellant) (Respondent)…

Aryacon Contractors and Engineers Pvt Ltd, Perumbavoor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aluva

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

ITA 853/COCH/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…evenue, it should also be considered as part of the income. The Respondent argues that it intends to bring uniformity between the accounting treatment and the tax treatment of retention money. The Respondent relies upon Rotork Controls Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 which states that a provision for present obligations in respect of past events is allowed. 74. Paragraph 10 does not specify as to at what stage retention money would be treated as `contract revenue'. Obviously the amount has to accrue as income. That is fundamental to the law of income tax. An analysis of the case law and the stand of the Petit…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 463/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…eleased to the assessee. Thus, the provision so made is of an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. CIT 112 Taxman 61, Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. 261 ITR 706. 50. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 considering the decision of coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. RSMM Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.144/JP/2014 &124/JP/2014 dated: 12.02.2016, allowed the clai…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 462/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…eleased to the assessee. Thus, the provision so made is of an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. CIT 112 Taxman 61, Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. 261 ITR 706. 50. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 considering the decision of coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. RSMM Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.144/JP/2014 &124/JP/2014 dated: 12.02.2016, allowed the clai…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…eleased to the assessee. Thus, the provision so made is of an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. CIT 112 Taxman 61, Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. 261 ITR 706. 50. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 considering the decision of coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. RSMM Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.144/JP/2014 &124/JP/2014 dated: 12.02.2016, allowed the clai…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 455/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…eleased to the assessee. Thus, the provision so made is of an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. CIT 112 Taxman 61, Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. 261 ITR 706. 50. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 considering the decision of coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. RSMM Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.144/JP/2014 &124/JP/2014 dated: 12.02.2016, allowed the clai…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 454/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…eleased to the assessee. Thus, the provision so made is of an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. CIT 112 Taxman 61, Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. 261 ITR 706. 50. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 considering the decision of coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. RSMM Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.144/JP/2014 &124/JP/2014 dated: 12.02.2016, allowed the clai…

DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Ncrb, Jpr vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…eleased to the assessee. Thus, the provision so made is of an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. CIT 112 Taxman 61, Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. 261 ITR 706. 50. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 considering the decision of coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. RSMM Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.144/JP/2014 &124/JP/2014 dated: 12.02.2016, allowed the clai…

DCIT, Circle-6 Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar Jpr

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…eleased to the assessee. Thus, the provision so made is of an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. CIT 112 Taxman 61, Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. 261 ITR 706. 50. The Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 considering the decision of coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s. RSMM Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.144/JP/2014 &124/JP/2014 dated: 12.02.2016, allowed the clai…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6234/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Addl. Cit(A), Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Special Range-4 Block B-1, Plot No. D-7, New Delhi Vs. Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan No:Aabci1964R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.

Section 143(3)

…1 Addl. CIT Vs. Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Addl. CIT(A), Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Special Range-4 Block B-1, Plot No. D-7, New Delhi Vs. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi PAN No:AABCI1964R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv Respondent by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.: The present app…

Prospira India Automotive Products Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. PCIT -1, Chennai

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

ITA 1395/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1395/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Murali, C.A IJFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद! एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! के सम' BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1395/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Prospira India Automotive Products The Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, No.136, Vaipur B Block, Chennai. Eraiyur Village, Mathur B.O., Mathur, Kanchipuram – 602 105. [PAN: AACCN 8800A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by : Dr. Abhishek Murali, C.A IJथG…

Marelli Powertrain India Private Limited, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3665/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Assessment Year:) 2014-15 Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 1, Sub Plot 25 & 32, Delhi Maruti Suppliers Park, Imt Manesar, Sector-3A, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm3204N

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year:) 2014-15 Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, Plot No. 1, Sub Plot 25 and 32, Delhi Maruti Suppliers Park, IMT Manesar, Sector-3A, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAFCM3204N Assessee by : Shri Aditya Vohra, CA Shri Arpit Goyal, CA Revenue by: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date of pronouncement 10/12/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3665/Del/2024 for AY 2014-15, arises ou…

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…preciation thereon. Following the mercantile system of accounting and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), such SRO is amortized over the tenure of the lease and claimed as business expenditure deductible. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee amortized Rs.101,11,00,000 in the books of accounts in respect of site restoration obligation. For the purposes of MAT, since ARO liability represents an ascertained liability, the same has been…

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…preciation thereon. Following the mercantile system of accounting and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), such SRO is amortized over the tenure of the lease and claimed as business expenditure deductible. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee amortized Rs.101,11,00,000 in the books of accounts in respect of site restoration obligation. For the purposes of MAT, since ARO liability represents an ascertained liability, the same has been…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…preciation thereon. Following the mercantile system of accounting and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), such SRO is amortized over the tenure of the lease and claimed as business expenditure deductible. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee amortized Rs.101,11,00,000 in the books of accounts in respect of site restoration obligation. For the purposes of MAT, since ARO liability represents an ascertained liability, the same has been…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-I/C DCIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1835/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

…the above claim is not supported by the actual valuation and hence, he disallowed 148,43,01,915/- The Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax 314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the provision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources and can be based on reliable estimation of such obligation then the liability incurred by the assessee company is allowable He further held that the methodology to determine the liability is also certified by a…

DCIT, Cir-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1834/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

…the above claim is not supported by the actual valuation and hence, he disallowed 148,43,01,915/- The Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax 314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the provision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources and can be based on reliable estimation of such obligation then the liability incurred by the assessee company is allowable He further held that the methodology to determine the liability is also certified by a…

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1816/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

…the above claim is not supported by the actual valuation and hence, he disallowed 148,43,01,915/- The Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax 314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the provision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources and can be based on reliable estimation of such obligation then the liability incurred by the assessee company is allowable He further held that the methodology to determine the liability is also certified by a…

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1815/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 101A(7)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44

…the above claim is not supported by the actual valuation and hence, he disallowed 148,43,01,915/- The Id CIT (A) after considering the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Rotork controls India private limited versus Commissioner of income tax 314 ITR 62 considered that if there is a present obligation with respect to the provision, and it arises out of events involving outflow of resources and can be based on reliable estimation of such obligation then the liability incurred by the assessee company is allowable He further held that the methodology to determine the liability is also certified by a…