9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich has not crystallized, would not be allowed as an expenditure. It is in this context, the Tribunal found that the assessee's liability to carry out construction, free of cost had not yet crystallized since it was contingent upon the authorities being able to give vacant possession of the portion of the plot on which, such construction would be carried out. The record suggests that such portion was occupied by the slum dwellers who were resisting their eviction. Whatever be the reason, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was unable to put assessee of vacant possession in said area for years together. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1740 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2019 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Vipul Joshi with Ms. Narmrata Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereupon, the assessee has filed the present appeal. 3. Appearing for the Appellant, learned Counsel submitted that, the assessee was under a legal obligation to provide construction free of costs. The Revenue Authorities did not dispute this liability of the assessee. Assessee had on the basis of scientific estimation arrived at the cost of said construction at ₹ 1.22 Crores which was also not disputed by the Revenue. The assessee had offered the entire receipt to tax in the present year on accrual basis, though, the entire sum was not received. In that view of the matter, the assessee's claim of expenditure was fully justified in facts and in law. The Revenue Authorities has committed serious error in rejecting such a claim. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that the assessee's liability to carry out construction, free of cost had not yet crystallized since it was contingent upon the authorities being able to give vacant possession of the portion of the plot on which, such construction would be carried out. The record suggests that such portion was occupied by the slum dwellers who were resisting their eviction. Whatever be the reason, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was unable to put assessee of vacant possession in said area for years together. 5. We now refer to the decisions cited by the Counsel for the Appellant. In case of Calcutta Co. Ltd., v/s. CIT reported in 37 ITR 1 , the facts were that the assessee was a land developer. He was providing infrastructure and basic f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
