← All Phrases

“mercantile system of accounting”

ICDS & AccountingSection 145Section 1451,487 judgments

The decision most relied on for mercantile system of accounting is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mercantile system of accounting

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court
935
citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court
739
citing judgments

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.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 363 · 1971 · Supreme Court
654
citing judgments

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT
436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

Judgments citing mercantile system of accounting

Dy CIT 10 (3)91), Mumbai vs. M/S Nouveau Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

ITA 8047/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma

purpose of computing yearly Profits and Gains, the expenditure is related to earlier years and since the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, the same is not allowable in the current financial year. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,58,94,960/- is disallowed and the work-in-progress

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

ITA 7039/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma

purpose of computing yearly Profits and Gains, the expenditure is related to earlier years and since the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, the same is not allowable in the current financial year. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,58,94,960/- is disallowed and the work-in-progress

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of aforesaid findings

ITA 111/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-32(1), Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, 1903, Siddhivinayak Tower Chs Ltd. Link Road, Sudhendra Nagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Afhpp0267N ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Jigaar Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.08.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Accounts & Reducing The Turnover To Rs. 9,50,35,865/- Against Turnover Of Rs. 12,05,07,568/- As Disclosed In The Audited Books Of Accounts.” 2. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Eliminating He Profits To 8% Of The Reduced Turnover Against Addition Of Rs. 8,49,87,993/- Made By The Ao.”

For Appellant: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Jigaar Mehta, AR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)

being difference of Receipts offered for taxation and that appearing in Form 26AS without appreciating that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting.” 6. “The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored