Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi And ... vs Bharat Carbon And Ribbon Manufacturing ... on 13 November, 1962

Gujarat Borosil Ltd.,, Bharuch vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 December, 2015

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Carbon And Ribbon Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 505 while following its earlier decision in case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 has held that the liability accrues over the accounting period because of the Demand notices issued by the excise department and obligation to pay excise duty arose on that stage. The court further held that raising of the dispute by the assessee by filing writ petition for quashing of deduction of that liability would not be a ground for holding that liability to pay excise duty as per demand notice was not incurred. The Court also referred to the decision of Kedarnath Jute to hold that irrespective of the fact that the liability was not accounted for in the books, it was deductible under mercantile system of accounting when liability has accrued. Therefore, once the company makes the payment, whether under protest or otherwise, by debting Profit & Loss account or by showing in the Balance Sheet or as contingent liability the same will be available as deduction u/s43B on making payment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Trust Marketing , Jaipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 October, 2019

He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 239 ITR 505 (SC) and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated its view as taken in case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC) by holding that the entitlement of deduction will depend on the provisions of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in that matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the liability accrued over the accounting period because of demand notice issued by the Excise Department, the obligation under the law to pay the excise duty arose at that stage. Raising the dispute by the assessee by filing the Writ Petition for quashing or deduction of the said liability would not be a ground for holding that the liability to pay the excise duty as per demand notice was not incurred. Thus the ld. A/R has contended that the mere claim of the assessee for refund of Countervailing Duty based on the ground that the assessee is eligible for exemption would not be a ground for holding that the assessee has not incurred the liability and expenditure or the said amount becomes the income of the assessee. He has also relied upon the 7 ITA No. 742/JP/2019 M/s. Trust Marketing, Jaipur.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 24 August, 2015

4.23. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the Tribunal, in the assessee's own case for earlier years, has decided this issue in the assessee's favour which position has been admitted by the Revenue vide the AO's letter dated 24.7.2015. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., (1999) 239 ITR 505 (SC), has held that a statutory liability accrues on issuance of demand notice. It has further been held that raising of further dispute by the assessee is not relevant. In view of this judgment, it becomes clear that the issuance of notice of demand by the competent Excise authority makes the amount otherwise deductible by means of incurring the liability. This satisfies the condition of section 43B which provides for deduction on actual payment in respect of an otherwise deductible amount. Since the amount in question has been paid during the year, it qualifies for deduction in terms of section 43B under the exclusive method. Thus on one hand deduction for excise duty paid under protest is available in the year of payment under the exclusive method, the same 32 ITA No.5120/Del/2010 ITA No.2441/Del/2012 amount cannot be allowed to get deducted once again on the finalization of the dispute with the Excise department on its transfer to Excise duty account. Simultaneously, the amount of excise duty paid under protest in earlier years getting deduction u/s 43B calls for inclusion in the total income of the current year on the removal of the amount from Excise duty paid under protest account.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asian Paints Limited,Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 28 April, 2026

(c) For the above, useful reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Manufacturing Company Pvt Ltd [1999] 239 ITR 505 (SC) which held that statutory liability accrues on issuance of demand notice, raising of further dispute by the assessee is not relevant. In the present case before us, statutory payment made by the assessee satisfied the conditions of Sec. 43B which provides for deduction on actual payment in respect of an otherwise deductible amount. Ld. PCIT has considered these payments as contingent liability since according to him, assessee has paid these taxes under protest not allowable under ICDS.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

Aggrieved, the Revenue came in appeal before us. Before us Ld. Departmental Representative argued that this liability is not statutory liability and it is actually a contractual liability. He further stated that the assessee has disputed this liability before the higher courts and consequently it has become disputed as contractual liability. He further sated that this liability has not crystallized during the year under consideration and the assessee had made the claim on the basis of estimates only. According to him, the contractual liability accrued only when the basis for configuration is settled by way of agreement or otherwise. He relied on various case laws in support of this contention. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. counsel, Shri S.N. Soparkar heavily relied on the orders of CIT(A) and stated that this liability has arisen on the assessee after passing of the order by the Industrial Court on 15-04-2000 and accordingly liability pertains to this year only. Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.(1999) 239 ITR 505 (SC) and recent decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Navjivan Roller Flour And Pulse Mills Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 315 ITR 190 (Guj). In view of these, Ld. counsel urged the Bench to confirm the order of CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat Borosil Ltd.,, Bharuch vs Department Of Income Tax on 3 May, 2016

"3.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that a refund of Rs.3.71crore was adjusted against the demand raised of Rs.4.55crore by the Excise Department which means that the demand raised by the department stands discharged to the extent of Rs.3.71 crore. We note that the order passed by the CIT(A) had taken into consideration all the issues raised concerning the all the material aspects of the case and clear cut finding was given that assessee was entitled to the said deduction u/s.43B of the Act on the payment basis and further held that the demand raised was not on account of penalty as claimed by the A.O.but was a routine demand. We are in full agreement with CIT(A) on this point. The assessee has also given note in the "notes to accounts" to the annual account mentioning the facts qua the said demand raised by the Excise Department and adjustment of refund of Rs.3.71Crore against that demand though not accounted for in the books of accounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Carbon And Ribbon Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 505 while following its earlier decision in case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 has held that the liability accrues over the accounting period because of the Demand notices issued by the excise department and obligation to pay excise duty arose on that stage. The court further held that raising of the dispute by the assessee by filing writ petition for quashing of deduction of that liability would not be a ground for holding that liability to pay excise duty as per demand notice was not incurred. The Court also referred to the decision of Kedarnath Jute to hold that irrespective of the fact that the liability was not accounted for in the books, it was deductible under mercantile system of accounting when liability has accrued. Therefore, once the company makes the payment, whether under protest or otherwise, by debting Profit & Loss account or by showing in the Balance Sheet or as contingent liability the same will be available as deduction u/s43B on making payment. Further, in the case of Glaxo Smithline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income ... vs Gujarat Borosil ... on 21 June, 2016

Further, in the case of Glaxo Smithline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. ITA No.343/Chjandigarh/2005, the five member Special Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh, it has been held that section 43B is not restrictive of prohibiting section by the Revenue but it is equally en enabling provision under which deductions are allowed on the payment of duties and taxes. In other words, the provision of section 43B overrides the method of accounting consistently followed and provides for the deduction of statutory liabilities in the year of Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Jun 23 02:32:12 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/476/2016 ORDER payment irrespective of the year in which the liability is incurred. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the various decisions discussed above and by respectfully following these decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on this point."
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1