← 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

M/S Ideb Buildcon Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1465/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)

profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time Accounting standards ... Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions, 2006, have been notified and hence they do not have statutory force. The Assessee follows mercantile system of Accounting. AS-7 or AS-9 or ICAI Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions, 2006, cannot be said to be either Cash

Income Tax Officer (TDS) 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Twinkle Enviro Tech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1371/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 206A

section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applicable to the appellant. 7. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing the Mercantile system of accounting while treating part of the NAC as interest and further erred in not directing the Ld. I.T.O (TDS) to consider so called interest

Twinkle Enviro Tech P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1231/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 206A

section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applicable to the appellant. 7. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing the Mercantile system of accounting while treating part of the NAC as interest and further erred in not directing the Ld. I.T.O (TDS) to consider so called interest

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

concluded that the provision was determined on the basis of scientific method and was reasonable. 9.2.2. Further, the appellant submitted that it follows mercantile system of accounting as otherwise referred to as accrual basis of accounting. The contractual obligation to carry out Periodic Maintenance is an integral part ... offered income on receipt basis. The CIT(A) has recorded in para 12 (ii) of his order that assessee company is following mercantile system of accounting and is recognizing income from contracts on percentage of completion method. In our considered opinion, there is nothing to disagree with

M/S. First Light Properties P. Ltd.(Earstwhile Known As M/S. Sumer Builders P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The DCIT, CC, 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed and stand of AO is confirmed

ITA 1768/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S First Light Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As M/S Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd.) 205, Commerce House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, For, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacs7947P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3), Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Sh. Sandip Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Sh. Sandip Raj, CIT-DR
Section 14A

incurred and the liability to pay interest accrued in FY 2014-15, so as per the mercantile system of accounting it could only be allowed in the year in which the expenditure was incurred and accrued. It is also not a case of the appellant that the interest liability ... accepted and there is no acceptable reason to differ with same, doctrine of consistency would come into play - Held, yes - Assessee was following mercantile system of accounting - During relevant assessment year, it claimed prior period expenses on ground that vouchers of such expenses from employees/branch employees were received after 31st

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmisson Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll .CIT - RG. 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR
Section 250

before us. 13. The learned D.R. during the course of hearing by vehemently relying upon the assessment order submitted that the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting and in view of the C&AG report, there is a clear overstatement of interest and finance charges and understatement of profits ... lacs as prior period expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure relating to prior period on the ground that as the respondent followed mercantile system of accounting expenditure relatable to an earlier year cannot be allowed as deduction in the assessment year under consideration. Thus an amount of Rs.92.81 lacs

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2782/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR
Section 250

before us. 13. The learned D.R. during the course of hearing by vehemently relying upon the assessment order submitted that the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting and in view of the C&AG report, there is a clear overstatement of interest and finance charges and understatement of profits ... lacs as prior period expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure relating to prior period on the ground that as the respondent followed mercantile system of accounting expenditure relatable to an earlier year cannot be allowed as deduction in the assessment year under consideration. Thus an amount of Rs.92.81 lacs

M/S.Shilpi Flocking Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 5411/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Shilpi Flocking Co. Pvt. Ltd., C/8, Janardhan Bhavan, B.K. Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai-400081. Pan: Aaacs8671C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-15(3)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Neha Thakur, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 26.04.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Disallowed Rs. 1,50,000/-(6,00,000-4,50,000) As Director’S Remuneration. The Income Tax Officer Has Considered Rs. 4,50,000 Instead Of Rs. 6,00,000 As Director’S Remuneration Paid. The Learned Cit (Appeals) -24 Mumbai Confirmed The Same By Passing The Order Under Section 250 Of The It Act 1961. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Income Tax Officer Erred In Disallowing Rs.5,61,210 & Rs. 1,38,917 On Account

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur, DR
Section 250

assessee had not offered the said income in its computation. AO stated that since the Assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the assessee was liable to offer the income as and when the income arises or accrued. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 2,57,236/- was added back ... under: “Ground No 3- Addition on account of Interest received on FD It is true that our above mentioned client is following the mercantile system of accounting however in the case of interest on Fixed Deposits same is shown either on maturity or pre-matured

DCIT Circle 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Ravi Dyeware Company P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)

explanation of the assessee has been considered, however, the same is not acceptable because of the following reasons; i. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and it has admitted that it has given loans & advances to above two parties and interest is due from the parties, however ... from above two parties, for the reason that the same is not collectible from the party, is not acceptable under the mercantile system of accounting followed by it. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,92,96,068 (Rs. 53,19,688 from M/s.Kamla Corporate Park and Rs.1,39,76,380 M/s.Kamla

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

provisions, its impact on profits and the legal effects. The accounts of a business concern can follow either “cash system of accounting” or “mercantile system of accounting”. Under mercantile system of accounting, “revenue cost matching principle” is followed, i.e., all the expenses incurred to earn the corresponding revenue should ... accounting for all known expenses and losses at the time of finalising accounts at the yearend. Accordingly, the assessee’s, who are following mercantile system of accounting are required to account for all known expenses and losses, even if the bills/invoices have not been received. This is done by making

Mr.Nanjunda Renuka Aradhya, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 206ASection 40Section 43B

payable from the time/date on which the invoice is issued itself (Notification No.18/2011-ST, dated 1.3.2011 as amended). The appellant is following mercantile system of accounting. Thus, by not declaring the said Service Tax as a part of Turnover in the P&L account and also not making good the dues ... immaterial whether the said amount of service tax is received or is still receivable in a case where appellant is following mercantile system of accounting. Section 43B is clearly applicable and the said amount can be allowed as deduction only in the year corresponding to the payment of the said

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

liability has accrued as a result of the service performed by the service provider in securing purchase orders. The assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and has accounted for such liability in the subject assessment 8 IT(TP)A Nos.764 /Bang/2017 & Or. M/s.Tejas Networks Limited. year. The learned

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 764/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

liability has accrued as a result of the service performed by the service provider in securing purchase orders. The assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and has accounted for such liability in the subject assessment 8 IT(TP)A Nos.764 /Bang/2017 & Or. M/s.Tejas Networks Limited. year. The learned

Boscj Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1581/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.1581/Bang/2014 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 M/S.Bosch Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Hoisur Road, Adugodi Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Bangalore - 560 030 Pan : Aaacm9840P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate & Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.08.2014. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-2010. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Diesel Fuel Injection Equipments & Parts Therefore, Auto Electrical Etc. For The Assessment Year 2009-2010, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.619,75,17,688. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The I.T.Act Vide Order Dated 31.05.2013 By Determining The Total Income At Rs.653,85,57,204. Aggrieved, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The First Appellate Authority. The Cit(A) Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Aggrieved By The 2 It(Tp)A No.1581/Bang/2014 M/S.Bosch Limited Order Of The Cit(A), On Issues Decided Against The Assesee, An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

allowing a deduction for the provision made towards interest payable to Central excise dept amounting to Rs.40,312 although the appellant has followed mercantile system of accounting. 2. That the learned CIT(A) LTU erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the interest expenditure payable

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appellant and find that the treatment in the accounts, in respect of provision for technical services, interest and royalty, is in accordance with mercantile system of accounting practice followed by the appellant as per which, at the end of the year they have to provide for liability accrued. Thus

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appellant and find that the treatment in the accounts, in respect of provision for technical services, interest and royalty, is in accordance with mercantile system of accounting practice followed by the appellant as per which, at the end of the year they have to provide for liability accrued. Thus

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 199

same line. Further, it is seen from schedule-1 of 5 ITA Nos.118 & 119/Bang/2022. M/s.K.N.Dastur & Co. Pvt.Ltd. ITR that the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting and all TDS appearing In 26AS has been claimed in ITR and the same has been allowed in intimation order except ... crores for earlier years as it has not been claimed in the ITR of the appellant and appellant is following mercantile system of accounting. Thus, the ground about short credit of TDS of Rs.4.30 crores is dismissed." 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 199

same line. Further, it is seen from schedule-1 of 5 ITA Nos.118 & 119/Bang/2022. M/s.K.N.Dastur & Co. Pvt.Ltd. ITR that the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting and all TDS appearing In 26AS has been claimed in ITR and the same has been allowed in intimation order except ... crores for earlier years as it has not been claimed in the ITR of the appellant and appellant is following mercantile system of accounting. Thus, the ground about short credit of TDS of Rs.4.30 crores is dismissed." 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years

M/S Siddaganga Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143Section 37

tribunal was justified in holding that accounting interest income on non performing asset on cash basis by the assessee though it was following mercantile system of accounting was correct since, once a particular asset is shown to be a non performing asset then the assumption is that

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5022/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

option of half yearly periodical interest, debenture holders were given another option to accept one time upfront discounted interest payment - Assessee was following mercantile system of accounting - It filed its return claiming deduction of upfront interest charges paid during relevant year - However, said amount was shown as deferred