Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT

156 ITR 585Supreme Court of India1985#884 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 366,339 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
Read the full judgment

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

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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 Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 1962/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…

Jyoti Limited, Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

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

ITA 1353/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Jyoti Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Nanubhai Amin Marg, Vs Income-Tax, Industrial Area, Circle-1(2), Vadodara-390003 Baroda Pan : Aaacj 4909 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mohd Usman, Cit-Dr & Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2022

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR &
Section 263Section 36(1)(v)

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3194/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3590/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 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. Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 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…

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 731/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…rovisions of the Act since containing non-obstante clause i.e. “this section shall effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act”. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd., Vs. CIT (1985) [156 ITR 585] (SC) has settled the law long back that Section 40A is an overriding provision in very terms. 6. Mr.Sai next vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee’s search statement through its authorised person had duly admitted un-disclosed income (supra). He quoted (2014) 362 ITR 13 (AP) Kernex Micro Systems (India) Ltd., Vs. DCIT,…

Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 730/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…rovisions of the Act since containing non-obstante clause i.e. “this section shall effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act”. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd., Vs. CIT (1985) [156 ITR 585] (SC) has settled the law long back that Section 40A is an overriding provision in very terms. 6. Mr.Sai next vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee’s search statement through its authorised person had duly admitted un-disclosed income (supra). He quoted (2014) 362 ITR 13 (AP) Kernex Micro Systems (India) Ltd., Vs. DCIT,…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Kanakamahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 68/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.68/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kanakamahalakshmi Co- Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd., Circle-1(1) D.No.49-34-22, Main Road, Visakhapatnam Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacft 6489 J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.59/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.68/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Kanakamahalakshmi Co- Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax D.No.49-34-22, Main Road, Circle-1(1) Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacft 6489 J] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT, DR
Section 16(1)

…29. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. We are of the considered view that the facts are not similar / identical in the case Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 156 ITR 585 (SC)/[1985], relied by the Revenue. Admitted facts are that the payments towards liability amounting to Rs 5,75,212 was directly made to LIC of India as a premium based on actuarial valuation, where the policy governing the fund is unapproved by CIT as on the date of contribution by way of premium. The Ld.CIT(A) also in Para 4.4.2 agreed to the f…

The Andaman & Nicobar State Corporation Bank Ltd., Port Blair vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 40A(7)Section 4ASection 4A(1)Section 4A(2)

…. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coimbatore Premier Corporation (244 ITR 753) and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (156 ITR 585) and does not want us to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is noted that the issue in dispute relates to the disallowance of payment made towards LIC employees’ group gratuity scheme u/s 40A(7) of the Act. From the material placed before us, it is noted that the assessee had…

Helti India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 502/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Helti India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 6Th Floor, Building 8, Tower C, Special Range-4, Dlf Cyber City, Phase 3, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaach3583Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…he Act was enacted to specify and stipulate that provision for gratuity would be allowed in the profit and loss account when additional conditions stated therein were also satisfied. [See decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC)] 15. Again in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), it has been observed:- "The law is settled: If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the li…

M/S. Maass Flange India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

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

ITA 1813/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1812 & 1813/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

…t 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: Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, M.P. & Anr., [1985] 156 ITR 585). From a bare a reading of section 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 aff…

M/S. Maass Flange India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

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

ITA 1812/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1812 & 1813/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 36(1)(v)Section 37

…t 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: Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, M.P. & Anr., [1985] 156 ITR 585). From a bare a reading of section 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 aff…

The ACIT.Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Co.Op. Marketing Federation Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1851/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1851/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T, Gujarat State Co-Op. Marketing Circle-1(2), Vs. Federation Limited, Ahmedabad. 49, Shrimali Society, N.P. Patel Sahkar Bhavan, Opp. Navrangpura Police Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad380009. Pan: Aaaag2927K

For Appellant: Shri Nikunj Bagadiya, A.R
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

…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…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5211/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Circle-Ii, Faridabad. Nhpc Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacn 0149 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. Acit Nhpc Ltd., Circle – Ii, Nhpc Office Comples, Faridabad 4Th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT, Vs. M/s. NHPC Ltd., Circle-II, Faridabad. NHPC Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. PAN No. AAACN 0149 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. ACIT NHPC Ltd., Circle – II, NHPC Office Comples, Faridabad 4th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Sh…

Sr. Manager(Fin)--Tax, Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5106/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Circle-Ii, Faridabad. Nhpc Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacn 0149 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. Acit Nhpc Ltd., Circle – Ii, Nhpc Office Comples, Faridabad 4Th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT, Vs. M/s. NHPC Ltd., Circle-II, Faridabad. NHPC Comples, Sector-33, Faridabad. PAN No. AAACN 0149 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sr. Manager(Fin)- Tax, Vs. ACIT NHPC Ltd., Circle – II, NHPC Office Comples, Faridabad 4th Floor, Finance Division Sector – 33, Faridabad-121003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Sh…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Jabalpur vs. M/S Madhyanchal Gramin Bank Poddar Colony, Sagar

ITA 137/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Aroraassessment Year 2015-16

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

…clarity, besides the same also informing and explaining my decision. The Apex Court in CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd. [2013] 216 Taxman 327 (SC), also referred to by the Revenue authorities, applying the ratio laid down by it in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585 (SC), i.e., that the principle of strict construction, applicable to taxing statutes, yet does not oust a reasonable construction, interpreting sec. 36(1)(v) of the Act, held that it was manifest from a bare reading thereof that the real intention behind the provision was that the employer should not have control over the funds of the irrevocable…

M/S Mrinalini Biri Manufacturing Co., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 85/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/s Mrinalini Biri Vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata P-43, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata- 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCM 1686 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA Respondent by :Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 27/07/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16/09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining t…