Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…ertinent to mention here that once the deduction for the very first is allowed then in subsequent year the deduction cannot be disallowed on the same ground. Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (Guj), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo's case (196 ITR 188) held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed li…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Co No.193/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year :2002-03) Ito 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaact2727Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM CO No.193/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year :2002-03) ITO 2(1)(1) Vs. M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAACT2727Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Anadi Varma, CIT (DR) Assessee by Shri Dinesh Vyas Date of Hearing 04/07/2017 Date of Pronouncement 27/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-6, Mumbai dated 11/03/2011…

Asst CIT CC 47, Mumbai vs. Ruby Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

…learned DR supported the order passed by the AO. On the other hand the learned counsel of the assessee relied on the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 3.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In Saurashtra Cement 213 ITR 523, it has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that though the expenditure relates to prior period, if the liability has accrued during the year, then the expenditure has to be allowed as deduction. Also in CIT vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd. 328 ITR 17, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that when prior period income is tax…

The Ruby Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

…learned DR supported the order passed by the AO. On the other hand the learned counsel of the assessee relied on the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 3.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In Saurashtra Cement 213 ITR 523, it has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that though the expenditure relates to prior period, if the liability has accrued during the year, then the expenditure has to be allowed as deduction. Also in CIT vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd. 328 ITR 17, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that when prior period income is tax…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

…ertinent to mention here that once the deduction for the very first is allowed then in subsequent year the deduction cannot be disallowed on the same ground. Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (Guj), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo's case (196 ITR 188) held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed lib…

Col Amarjit D Nagi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 20

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

…t has held that " unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the ITO could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years. Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd v. ClT (1980)123 ITR 669 also supports the case of assessee 31. With respect to the assets given on lease and returning back to the assessee and again given on lease depreciation is required to be allowed once the assets purchased in the earlier year have entered the block of assets, and depreciation in respect of such assets has been allowed in that year, depreciation…

The DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nutech Coporate Services Ltd (Formerly Known As Iit Capital Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

…t has held that " unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the ITO could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years. Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd v. ClT (1980)123 ITR 669 also supports the case of assessee 31. With respect to the assets given on lease and returning back to the assessee and again given on lease depreciation is required to be allowed once the assets purchased in the earlier year have entered the block of assets, and depreciation in respect of such assets has been allowed in that year, depreciation…

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…he expenditure in the year in which liability is crystallized and paid, and not in the year to which strictly speaking, these expenses pertain. This practice, in any case has the approval of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement Vs. CIT (213 ITR 523). No doubt the assessee is following mercantile method of accounting but as is the settled legal position, even the expenses, liability in respect of which has crystallized in the relevant previous year, have to be allowed as deduction. It was not the case of the revenue. Nor is t here any material to establish so, that the liability did not crys…

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…he expenditure in the year in which liability is crystallized and paid, and not in the year to which strictly speaking, these expenses pertain. This practice, in any case has the approval of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement Vs. CIT (213 ITR 523). No doubt the assessee is following mercantile method of accounting but as is the settled legal position, even the expenses, liability in respect of which has crystallized in the relevant previous year, have to be allowed as deduction. It was not the case of the revenue. Nor is t here any material to establish so, that the liability did not crys…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 3(1)

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…he expenditure in the year in which liability is crystallized and paid, and not in the year to which strictly speaking, these expenses pertain. This practice, in any case has the approval of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement Vs. CIT (213 ITR 523). No doubt the assessee is following mercantile method of accounting but as is the settled legal position, even the expenses, liability in respect of which has crystallized in the relevant previous year, have to be allowed as deduction. It was not the case of the revenue. Nor is t here any material to establish so, that the liability did not crys…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Amar Plastics, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.8810/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit 21(2) M/S. Amar Plastics बनाम/ Room No.508, C-10, 21, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 5Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kalpataru Point, Mumbai - 400051 Kamanji Marg, Sion(East) Mumbai - 400022 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfa2724J

…re it is required to make provisions in the books of accounts only for the ascertained liability and not contingent or disputed liability. The above view is submitted by the ratio of the decisions in the case of Saurashtra Cements and Chemical Industries Ltd. 213 ITR 523(Guj.), Sterlite A.Y. 2007-08 Industries 6 SOT 497(MUM), Annarnaria & Tours P.Ltd. 95 TTJ 71, Swadeshi Cotton and Flor Mills 53 ITR 14(SC), Ashok Iron & Steal Coal Mills 199 ITR 815 (Allah.)., Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills 203 ITR 375(Cal.) relied by the appellant. Even otherwise by not claiming such expenditure in earlier years the assessee has no…