Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Tirath Ram Ahuja P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 31 August, 1990

Assistant Cit, Circle 3(3) vs Prerna Premises (P) Ltd. on 21 October, 2005

. . .' Though the finding of the Tribunal that neither profit nor loss for the construction contract for the year should be taken was not interfered with by the Delhi High Court in the case of Tirath Ram Ahuja (P) Ltd. (supra), Their Lordships have following the Patna High Court's decision in Sri Sukhdeodas Jalan's case (supra) clearly observed :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

H.M. Constructions vs Joint Cit on 29 January, 2001

14. As has been mentioned by us in the earlier paragraphs, the Commissioner as also the learned Departmental Representative have placed reliance on a number of judicial decisions which we deem it necessary to discuss. Firstly, the Commissioner has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Tirath Ram Ahuja (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 15 (Del), for the proposition that in the case of a completed contract, one need not wait till the contract was completed and it was open to the revenue to estimate the profits on the basis of receipts in each year of construction although the contract was not completed. The facts in that case were that the assessee had entered into a contract for construction of the bridge and it had spent Rs. 13,43,131, on the said work which had to be abandoned due to outbreak of war between India and Pakistan and it received only Rs. 11,11,100 from the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Tribunal in the aforesaid case found that the said sum was the income of the assessee as the same was not repayable. Further, the company was not in a position at the end of the accounting period to arrive at the work-in-progress also in view of the peculiar facts. It was in this context that the Hon'ble High Court made the observations authorising the estimation of profits of each year even though the contract was not completed. Whereas in the case before us, the amounts received by the assessee are as advances and are refundable to the plot owners in view of certain circumstances prescribed therein. Further, in the instant case, the assessee is in a position to calculate the work-in-progress under each one of the projects at the end of each accounting year and the same is not disputed. Therefore, although the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is well respected, but the same does not apply to the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Lurgi India Co. Ltd. on 24 August, 2007

More recently, this was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo-Nippon Ltd. He also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tirath Ram Ahuja (P) Ltd. (supra), in which it was held that in the case of a contract, one need not wait till the contract was completed in order to ascertain the income and was open to the revenue to estimate profits on the basis of receipts of each year although the contract was not complete. It was pointed our that the question whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that neither profit nor loss was to be taken into account in the assessment year involved, an inference from basic or primary facts and in the circumstances of the case. Thus it did not involve any point of law. It was pointed out by him that the assessee had been following the aforesaid method of accounting for the last five years, as explained to the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). In any case, the assessee has been suffering losses consistently, including in this year and, therefore, no profit could have been estimated from the receipts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Taikisha Ltd. (Taikisha Limited V. Dy. ... on 17 June, 1994

3. The second ground of appeal is that the income may be computed on completed contract basis. The assessed had completed the execution of the contract in 15 months, i.e., from 22nd Jan., 1985 to 21st April, 1986. Replying on the Delhi High Court decision in Tirath Ram Ahuja (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 15 (Del), the Assessing Officer held that the income has to be computed on year to year basis. He took into account the receipts and allowed deduction on account of payments. In this process he assessed a sum of Rs. 21,59,902. Before the CIT(A), assessed had pleaded that he had no quarrel with the principle that income should be computed on year to year basis but their grievance was about the mode of computation. It was pointed out that income from this contract had been determined by the Assessing Officer in the subsequent assessment year at Rs. 14,33,667. After allowing deduction of Rs. 21,59,902 being the profit assessed for the year under appeal, the Assessing Officer assessed the loss at Rs. 7,26,235. The CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the assessed and directed to assess the profit of Rs. 13,23,385 in the year under appeal and substitute the loss with the income of Rs. 1,10,282 for the subsequent year.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Greater Ashoka Land & Dev. Co. (P) Ltd vs Asst. Cit on 21 August, 2001

5. The matter was carried before the Commissioner (Appeals) before whom various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessed. Firstly, it was stated that money is received by them are only in the form of advance and not the sale price. Secondly, it was submitted that substantial development work was still to be executed and consequently, profits could not be determined in the year under appeal. Thirdly, the single venture method of accounting employed by the assessed had been accepted in assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and, therefore, there was no justification to make any departure there from. Fourthly, it was submitted that estimate of profit as made by assessing officer was excessive. Lastly. it was submitted that decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Tirath Rain Ahuja (P) Ltd. (supra) was distinguishable on the facts of the case in as much as that decision was rendered in the case of a contractor. Various details were also filed to establish that development work was still continuing and the venture was not complete.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next