9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. There is also no denial by the Delhi Government as well as Societies for the claim of excess payment/ loss by the assessee which is also paid in subsequent year as per contention of the assessee. Therefore, disallowance of provision of loss was justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee. - ITA.No.1105/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 17-10-2017 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. For The Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-DR ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi, dated 10th January, 2013, for the A.Y. 2009-2010, challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimate of ₹ 90 crores to ₹ 235 crores. The revision of cost was primarily due to incomplete estimate made by NEERI. Several items which are essential for construction and proper operation of CETP were not included by NEERI in its original estimate. The increase in estimated cost for which the commitment of the stake holders is not available, has been treated as loss, which has been recognized while preparing the P L A/c for assessment year under appeal. The assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DTTDC Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 1 (Del.) in which it was held that the expenditure incurred by assessee on construction of flyovers etc., was to be treated as revenue expenditure under section 37 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the corresponding loss cannot be allowed. The appellant in the balance sheet is not claiming the loss as bad debt because it is not a trading liability and secondly it has not written off its claim. The appellant has simply relying on the Accounting Standard-7 that it has not received payments, therefore, loss on the same may be allowed. The appellant has lodged its claim before the Delhi Govt, and Societies for claiming the excess amount spent on CETPs. It is not become final that Delhi Govt, and societies will not contribute towards the excess expenditure incurred on construction of CETPs. The matter is pending with the Delhi Govt, and societies and the appellant s claim is intact. The appellant has also taken this issue with the Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1 provides as under : Provision for Foreseeable Losses : 13.1. When current estimates of total contract costs and revenues indicate a loss provision is made for the entire loss on the contract irrespective of the amount of work done and the method of accounting followed. In some circumstances, the foreseeable losses may exceed the costs of work done to date. Provision is nevertheless made for the entire loss on the contract. 5. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee claimed loss because no amount have been received from the concerned authorities. The assessee did not waive-off or written-off amount in question in the books of accounts. The loss is not crystalized during the assessment year under appeal. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a trading liability and secondly, it has not been written-off. The assessee has also not explained as to how the claim of such loss has been ascertained in assessment year under appeal. It was not crystalized in assessment year under appeal that the Delhi Government and the Societies will not contribute the balance amount towards the project. The matter was pending for raising the claim against these parties. Therefore, assessee has not written-off the amount in its books of accounts. The assessee thus, failed to prove that liability/loss has been crystalized during assessment year under appeal and what is the basis thereof for making the claim of loss. It is very well clear under the Income Tax Act, deduction is not admissible on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
