Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT

156 ITR 585Supreme Court of India1985#882 most cited

What is Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A liability for gratuity, even if actuarially valued and claimed as ascertained, is deductible under Section 37 only for amounts actually paid, especially when no formal provision for the amount has been made.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37(1) · gratuity deduction · actuarial valuation · ascertained liability · actual payment · no provision for gratuity · 156 ITR 585 · SC 1985

Also reported as

23 Taxmann 37

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 115JBSection 195Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 44

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usecomputer softwaresection 10(23c)section 40a

Judgments citing Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 571/IND/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 40A(9)

…of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. (See : Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. & Anr. (1985) 156 ITR 585). From a bare reading of Sectin 36(1)(v) of the Act, it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. In the instant case, it is evident from the findings recorded by the Commissioner and affirm…

ARYAVART BANK,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 800/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 250(68)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, vs. DCIT-Range 1, (Successor to erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2nd & 3rd Floor, NBCC Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow PAN: AAAJU0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. C. Naresh, FCA Revenue by: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 28.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: [ This is an appeal filed by th…

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

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

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

…data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:- "35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liability stood ascertained by actuarial va…

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /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) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1 2 3

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

…data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:-"35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liability stood ascertained by actuarial va…

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 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

…data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:- "35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liability stood ascertained by actuarial va…

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

…data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:- "35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liability stood ascertained by actuarial va…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD.)

ITA/304/2024HC Delhi30 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 37

…collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:- “35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974-1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liability stood ascertained by actuaria…

FLEETGUARD FILTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 921/PUN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.921/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Fleetguard Filters Private The Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, V Income Tax, Circle-1(1), 136, Park Marina Road, S Pune. Baner, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaace3125C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P. Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For Ay 2016-17 Dated 23/06/2023,Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 19.12.2018.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “A. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Made A Mistake In Disallowing The Payment Made For Gratuity To Its Employees Amounting To Rs 28.28,922/-. Fleetguard Filters Private Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40ASection 40A(7)

…ty to its employees as expenses were incurred wholly & exclusively for the purpose of the assessee’s business. d. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on the judgement by Apex Court in case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd vs CIT [ 1985J 156 ITR 585 (SC). e. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) made mistake in not considering that Assessee had claimed deduction towards actual payment of the Gratuity and not towards the provision of the Gratuity.” Findings and Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that assessee had claimed Rs.1,67,46,…

SHREE AGARWAL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20 Shree Agarwal Coal India The Dcit/Acit, Private Limited, V Circle-4, Nagpur. 216, Devkripa Society, S Bhandara Road, Nagpur – 440008. Pan: Aafcs6709L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Darak – Ca-Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe– Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 On 26.12.2021, Emanating From Order Under Section 143(1) Dated 25.12.2020 Issued By Dcit(Cpc), Shree Agarwal Coal India Private Limited [A]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80I

…he assessee uploaded Form No.10CCB on efilinghelpdesk@incometax.gov.in, electronically. 6.1 In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we will like to refer to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Observations in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) as under : Quote “The principle that fiscal statutes should be strictly construed does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose or intention of any particular provision as apparent from the scheme of the Act, with the assistance of such external aids as are permissible under the…

TWININGS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

…e Section, yet a strict construction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. (See : Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585/23 Taxman 37 (SC). From a bare reading of Sectin 36(1)(v) of the Act, it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. In the instant case, it is evident from the findings recorded by the Commis…

L & T MHPS BOILERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4765/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm L & T Mhps Boilers Private Limited Acit-2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, L & T House, Mumbai Vs. N. M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcl 2635 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai &
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…has not been crystallized during the year, it was not an allowable deduction. The ld. A.O. relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC) and Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585 (SC), wherein it was held that only expenditures which was incurred or which was existing was liable for deduction and not any future expenses anticipated to be expended. The ld. A.O. relied on the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case and held that the assessee’s claim on foreseeable losses was not allowable u/s.…

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 189/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 115JSection 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 92B

…retirement / termination or in the year in which the contributions are made to a gratuity fund which may be approved or unapproved. In support, we take strength from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 156 ITR 585 and the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Commonwealth Trust Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2004) 269 ITR 290. 8.5 We therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO for necessary verification in respect of the disallowance made by the assessee towards the gratuity in any of the previous year and subsequent payment to the extent it is pai…

DEVI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

ITA 2406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2406/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 Devi Construction Company 1161/10, Devi Niwas, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aaafd8922A बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle 2, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Extant Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 10/08/017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…owance holding it to be non-existing of liability at the time provision and being contingent in nature in the light of decision Hon’ble Apex Court in “Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT” reported in 37 ITR 86 and “Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs CIT” reported at 156 ITR 585. ii. In reaching the north pole of adjudication on the clinching subject matter, it is sufficient to state that, ITAT-Pune Page 11 of 16 Devi Construction Company ITA Nos. 2406/PUN/2017 AY: 2012-13 while computing the income under chapter IV-D of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim only that business expenditure towards which the liabilit…

JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue (ITA No

ITA 354/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.354/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs M/S Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.10/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.354/Ctk/2019) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.326/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, CAsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ce in the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not right in deleting the disallowance made under 'diminution in value of Govt. of India Fertilizer Bonds' amounting to Rs.10,16,25,000/- ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Sajjan Mills v. ClT, 156 ITR 585 . (iii) On the facts and in the circumstance in the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not right in law in allowing a provision, made in the accounts of the assessee for some anticipated loss on GOl Fertilizer Bonds 011 presumption and not accrued or crystallized during the year, as expenditure allowable under section 37(1) the IT. Act. (iv) The appellant c…

PARADEEP PHOSPATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue (ITA No

ITA 326/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.354/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs M/S Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.10/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.354/Ctk/2019) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.326/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, CAsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ce in the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not right in deleting the disallowance made under 'diminution in value of Govt. of India Fertilizer Bonds' amounting to Rs.10,16,25,000/- ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Sajjan Mills v. ClT, 156 ITR 585 . (iii) On the facts and in the circumstance in the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not right in law in allowing a provision, made in the accounts of the assessee for some anticipated loss on GOl Fertilizer Bonds 011 presumption and not accrued or crystallized during the year, as expenditure allowable under section 37(1) the IT. Act. (iv) The appellant c…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NTPC LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 156/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80I

…ken place. If downward revision were not undertaken, there would have been a likelihood of the higher figure not being realized after tariff finalization. 21. There is authority, in the form of Supreme Court judgments in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 and Metal Box Company of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1969) 73 ITR 53, that a provision made on a reasonable basis, it would be in the nature of an ascertained liability and that in a mercantile system of accounting, provision for liability ascertained during the course of the relevant accountin…

DCIR, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NTPC LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5704/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Bhavnesh Kulsheshtha, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80I

…ken place. If downward revision were not undertaken, there would have been a likelihood of the higher figure not being realized after tariff finalization. 21. There is authority, in the form of Supreme Court judgments in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 and Metal Box Company of India Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1969) 73 ITR 53, that a provision made on a reasonable basis, it would be in the nature of an ascertained liability and that in a mercantile system of accounting, provision for liability ascertained during the course of the relevant accountin…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…he Section, yet a strict construction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. (See: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585/23 Taxman 37 (SC). From a bare reading of Sectin 36(1)(v) of the Act, it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. In the instant case, it is evident from the findings recorded by the Commis…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…he Section, yet a strict construction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. (See: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585/23 Taxman 37 (SC). From a bare reading of Sectin 36(1)(v) of the Act, it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. In the instant case, it is evident from the findings recorded by the Commis…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…he Section, yet a strict construction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. (See: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585/23 Taxman 37 (SC). From a bare reading of Sectin 36(1)(v) of the Act, it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. In the instant case, it is evident from the findings recorded by the Commis…

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT (156 ITR 585) — Cited in 119 Judgments | BharatTax