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 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

The ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 326/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp) No.7/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.8/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.9/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.326/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V.A Tech Wabag Limited, Corporate Circle-3(2) No.17, Wabag House, Chennai 200 Feet Radial Road, Sunnambukolathur, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aabcv0225G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Kutty, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Amitabh Shukla, A.M : Delay S. Appel- Appeal Nos. Ays Cit(A) Order Details Respondent In Filing No. Lant Appeal A B C D E F G Acit, Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / M/S. V.A Tech It(Tp)-7 / Cc- 2020-21 / 1029389607 (1) Wabag 1 2013-14 4 Days Chny/2021 3(2), Dt.31.12.2020 Limited, Chennai Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-8 / 2 2014-15 2020-21 / 1029389231 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-9 / 3 2015-16 2020-21 / 1029389414 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-326 3 4 2016-17 2020-21 / 1031510911 (1) /Chny/2021 Months Dt.16.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kutty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)

…that the warranty IT(TP)A No.7, 8, 9 & 326/Chny/2021 :- 4 -: provisions need to be recognized because the appellant had present obligations as a result of past events. The Ld. AO relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Rotork India Pvt Ltd 314 ITR 62 mandating that provision of warranty is a permitted expenditure only if based upon a scientific working. The Ld. AO did not concur with the assesse’s submissions and made addition of Rs.17,53,70,580/- . The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority deleted the addition after comprehensively examining the commercial viabi…

M/S Multitech Solutions, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. -31, Kolkata

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

ITA 1443/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Additional CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…ppellant company relied upon the decision in the case of Rotork Control India Pvt Limited vs CIT rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The issue of provision of warranty was addressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (314 ITR 62) in detail. The Apex Court has laid down various principles to determine the provision of warranty and the allowability of the said expenditure. At para 10.11.12 & 13 of its judgment the Apex Court has dealt in detail the requirements to claim the provision of warranty. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex court has allowed the as…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…in the paperbook filed by the Assessee. Further, the reversal of provision in subsequent year was also offered to tax. The case of the Assessee would be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that provision for warranty created basis past trends is not a contingent liability and therefore should be allowed as a deduction. 60. The facts of the case are similar as even in the present facts of the case, the Assessee created a provision for a liability to be discharged under a scheme floated…

Rotomag Motors and Controls Private Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 666/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 666/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Rotomag Motors & Assistant Commissioner Controls Private Of Income Tax Vs. Limited Anand Circle Phase Iv, 2102-3, B/H. R K Metal, V.U. Nagar, Anand – 388121, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr9061K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Shailesh J. Shah, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. Dr 22/08/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024

For Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…easonable and scientific estimation. Notable cases cited include: • CIT v. Vinite Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [2005] 278 ITR 337 (Del): The court allowed the provision for warranty expenses based on reasonable estimation. • Rotork Controls India Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC): Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed a provision for warranty expenses where it was based on past data and made using a reliable estimation method. • Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC): Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a business liability, if based on a reasonable estimate and historical data, should be allowed as a deduction even…

Sfc Soultions India (Fluid) Private Limited, Chengalpattu vs. ACIT Corp. Circle 1(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 9/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.9/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S.Sfc Solutions India (Fluid) Pvt. Ltd. Acit [Formerly Known As Cooper Standard Automotive Corporate Circle-1(2) India Pvt.Ltd.] Chennai. बनाम/ 3A,Ford Supplier Park,Killakarani Vs. Village,Melrosapuram Post Via Singaperumal Koil -603 204. Chengalpattu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcc-3665-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sumant Chadha (Fca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar(Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sumant Chadha (FCA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar(CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 43B

…omputed on the basis of actual claim and was not merely ad-hoc estimation. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance upon the Apex court decision of CIT Vs. Rotork Controls India Limited (2009) 314 ITR 62 while concluding that non-creation of Warranty provision in the year of sale affected in earlier accounting periods would lead to disallowance of expenditure claimed in subsequent accounting period in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and Accounting Standard. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as on the law and failed to app…

Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 39/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…lso noted. At this point, we feel it proper to take note of two judgments of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of Bharat earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 112 Taxman 61/245 ITR 428 and in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 180 Taxman 422/314 ITR 62. In the first case, the issue in dispute was regarding estimation of future liability of leave encashment and it was held by Hon'ble apex court in this case that the liability should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. It was held that if this is satisfied than the liability…

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Vijai Electricals Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 273/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.272 & 273/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2020-21) Acit, Circle 8(1) Vs. Vijay Electricals Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacv7259B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.4/Hyd/2024 (आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.272/Hyd/2024) (िनधा"रण ष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Electricals Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacv7259B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Srinivasa Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Mookambikeyan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/07/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2020-21 & For The A.Y. 2011-12, The Assessee Has Also Filed A Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri B Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Mookambikeyan, DR

…ITA Nos 272 273 and CO 4 of 2024 Vijai Electricals Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.272 & 273/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2020-21) ACIT, Circle 8(1) Vs. Vijay Electricals Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAACV7259B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.4/Hyd/2024 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.272/Hyd/2024) (िनधा"रण ष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Electricals Ltd Vs. ACIT, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAACV7259B (Appellant) (R…

ACIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. Vijai Electricals Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 272/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.272 & 273/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2020-21) Acit, Circle 8(1) Vs. Vijay Electricals Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacv7259B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.4/Hyd/2024 (आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.272/Hyd/2024) (िनधा"रण ष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Electricals Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacv7259B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Srinivasa Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Mookambikeyan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/07/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2020-21 & For The A.Y. 2011-12, The Assessee Has Also Filed A Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri B Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Mookambikeyan, DR

…ITA Nos 272 273 and CO 4 of 2024 Vijai Electricals Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.272 & 273/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2020-21) ACIT, Circle 8(1) Vs. Vijay Electricals Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAACV7259B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.4/Hyd/2024 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.272/Hyd/2024) (िनधा"रण ष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Electricals Ltd Vs. ACIT, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAACV7259B (Appellant) (R…

Grey Orange India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-10(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7607/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…provision for warranty charges. The assessee is in second year operation and as per sample period for which analysis could be done is not available. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 is not applicable. 5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the warranty expenses, made on the same basis, have been allowed in the subsequent years. 5.3 Learned counsel submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of sales, trading, marketing, production and assembly of products and parts for warehousing automation where the product…

Mag India Industrial Automation Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Prakash Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 234BSection 250

…y expenses but mechanically the provision was made at a percentage basis and not based on the past experience. In this regard, the ld. AO relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). 4.1 The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Bangalore and contended that the provision for the warranty expenses were made after consultation with Industry experts, advice from group companies and after considering the various factors. The ld. CIT(A) had not accepted the argument of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieve…

Mag India Industrial Automation Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Prakash Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 234BSection 250

…y expenses but mechanically the provision was made at a percentage basis and not based on the past experience. In this regard, the ld. AO relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). 4.1 The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Bangalore and contended that the provision for the warranty expenses were made after consultation with Industry experts, advice from group companies and after considering the various factors. The ld. CIT(A) had not accepted the argument of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieve…

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

ACIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Weir India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4171/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…CIT vs. Weir India Pvt. Ltd. 7. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim made by the assessee by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotok Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) and observed that assessee has been creating provision @ 1% over the years and also this claim was admitted by the Department in subsequent Assessment Years. Accordingly, he allowed the claim made by the assessee. 8. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that assessee is creating warranty provision every year and in assessee’s own…

Amalgam Foods Limited, Kochi vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Alappuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 561/COCH/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Amalgam Foods Limited Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Alappuzha Amalgam House, Bristow Road, Vs. Willingdon Island, Kochi-682 002 [Pan:Aabca 8283D] (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 : 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 26.12.2019, For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-2002. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. Taking Note Of The Request Dated 05.02.2024 By Sri R. Srinivasan, Ca, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, That His Personal Appearance May Be Dispensed With & The Matter Decided After Considering Written Submissions, Enclosed Along With, The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi
Section 143(3)Section 254

…dictate booking of such expenditure. This in fact forms the basis for allowance of provision on various expenses, viz. gratuity, leave encashment, sale warranty, etc., and toward which we may advert to decisions in Rotrak Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC); Madras Industrial Inv. Corp. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), to cite few, as also to CIT v. British Paints (I) Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC). Financial obligation in FE may also be added to this list. The actual discharge of the liability during the relevant year is not a condition…

M/S. Birlasoft Limited (Formerly Known As Kpit Cummins Infosystems Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 739/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Birlasoft Ltd. (Formerly Known As Kpit Technologies Ltd.) The Assistant # 35 & 36, Rajiv Commissioner Gandhi Infotech Park, Of Income Tax, Phase – 1, Midc Circle – 11(5), Hinjawadi, Bangalore. Vs. Pune – 411 057. Pan: Aaack7308N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT –DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…). 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by upholding the additions made in the assessment order. It is submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 in respect of warranty provisions. The assessee submitted that in respect of the disallowance computed u/s. 10A the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Intellinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The L…

Sony Pictues Netorks India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delhi (Now Known As National Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 925/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2015-16 : A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…oint that the provision for outstanding expenses is an accrued liability and hence allowable as deduction:- (a) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000)(245 ITR 428)(SC) (b) Calcutta Co Ltd vs. CIT (1959)(37 ITR 1)(SC) (c) Rotork Controls India P Ltd vs. CIT (2009)(314 ITR 62)(SC) In view of the above, the Ld DRP called for a remand report from the assessing officer. However, in the remand report, the AO reiterated his earlier findings that the assessee has made provision on adhoc basis, since relevant bills were not received by it. Accordingly, the AO reiterated that the liability has not been crystallized. The Ld DRP…

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4786/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Vs. The Joint Director of Shanghai Banking Income Tax Corporation Ltd. (International Srnior Vice President Taxation)-3, Mumbai Tax, 1st Floor, Scindia India Area Management House 5th Floor, Hongkong N.M. Marg, Ballard Bank Building, Estate, Mumbai – 400 52/60, MG Road 038 Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No.AAACT4652J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Deputy Commissioner Vs. The Hongkong & Shanghai of Income Tax-(IT)- Banking Corporation Ltd. 2(2)(2), Srnior Vice Pre…