Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)

Acg Associated Capsules P.Ltd vs C.I.T Central-Iv Mumbai on 8 February, 2012

23. In view of what is stated above, there is no reason to entertain the appeal. Appeal is dismissed." ' (Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid appeal arose from the Tribunal's order in Associated Cables (P) Ltd. vs. DOT CIT (2994) 48 ITD 141 (Bom)(TM), wherein the assessee, a manufacturer of speciality cables, was to receive 90% of the sale price upon dispatch of goods and the balance 10% was to be released by its customers against a performance bank guarantee covering the warranty period. On these facts, the assessee claimed that the though the 10% of the sale value was received by it on furnishing a bank guarantee, the same did not accrue to it as there was no unconditional right to receive that amount because of the significant risk arising from the contingency of the buyer invoking the bank guarantee. When the matter reached the Hon'ble Tribunal, there was a cleavage of opinion between the two learned Members constituting the Bench. While the learned Judicial member held against the assessee the learned Accountant Member held in favour of the assessee. On a 5 ITA Nos.4872/Mum/2015, 4340/Mum/2015 & 4873/Mum/2015 M/s. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., reference to the Third Member it was held as under: ".....,/ have to agree with the learned Accountant Member that as long as the performance guarantee remains and is enforceable without notice to the assessee, the income from the retention money cannot be recognized. Consequently, I have to agree with the learned Accountant member that the retention money of 10% has to be excluded in computing the total income under the period of guarantee is over....................... (Emphasis Supplied) Following the above decision of Bombay High Court which referred various decision of the other Courts where it held that right to receive retention money accrued only after the conditions under the contract are fulfilled, it will not accrue till that conditions are fulfilled. This income will be assessed as assessee's income only when contractee fulfills all the conditions of the contract and pays the amount. In view of the above decision of the various High Courts, addition of the retention money of Rs. 2,66,92,253/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 297 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Taparia Tools Ltd. vs Joint Commnr. Of Income Tax, Nasik on 23 March, 2015

14. He further argued on the effect of accounting treatment and contended that if the income does not result at all, they cannot be taxed. For this purpose reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 363, Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd., (1973) 89 ITR 266, 273(SC) and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., (1979) 116 1,5. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement delivered on 23.03.2015 in Taparia Tools Ltd. v. CIT [ Civil Appeal No. 6366-6368 of 2013] reiterated the 8 ITA Nos.4872/Mum/2015, 4340/Mum/2015 & 4873/Mum/2015 M/s. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., above principles. It is well settled that income is to be computed as per the provisions of the law, and it is not necessary that law should follow the footsteps of accountancy. Income-tax law does not march step by step in the divergent footprint of the accountancy profession.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 44 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. ... on 5 December, 1988

26. We had also carefully gone through the comparative features brought on record by learned AR that in respect to the facts of the instance case vis-à-vis the facts of Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) as relied on by learned DR, we are in agreement that the facts of Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) is distinguishable. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for directing the AO to tax the retention money in the year of actual receipt and not in the year of completion of contract.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 87 - Full Document

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Ward 'A', ... on 16 November, 1976

11. On the other hand, learned AR firstly argued on the principle of consistency and contended that from the Asst. year 2003-04 to A. Y. 2009-10, the assessee's method was accepted by the department and in Asstt. Year 2004-05 there was a Scrutiny assessment. As per learned AR even though Res judicata does not apply to tax proceedings. Again each assessment year being a Unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year, but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different Assessment Years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not at all be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year". Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1977) 106ITR 1 (SC). Quoted in C.I.Tv. Excel industries Ltd (2013) 38 Taxman.com (SC) (P.B. page 34 at page 40).
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 597 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1   2 Next