2003 (4) TMI 582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in following the view that the liability in this case was not contingent liability but in praesenti and consequently allowing the development expenses of ₹ 19,486 ? 2. Heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Sri Ratnakar Bharti, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r section 256 of the Income-tax Act for opinion. 5. Similar question was raised and decided in CIT v. Development Trust (P.) Ltd. [1991] 198 ITR 766(All.), where it was held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the estimated liability of development expenses was not a contingent liability but a liability in praesenti and hence an allowable deduction. 6. In view of the above decisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X