THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -3 vs. DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1402/2018HC DelhiDLHC01539410201719 February 2020Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessee's claim regarding the project completion method and the timing of revenue recognition was not adversely commented upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the questions of law raised by the appellant did not arise for consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed that 100% of project revenue was offered to tax in AY 2007-08 based on the project completion method. The contract commenced in AY 2003-04, and no additions were made in AY 2003-04, though AY 2004-05 did not undergo scrutiny assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue recognition method followed by the assessee was valid and whether additions made by the revenue were justified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 15 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

$~11. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1402/2018 & C.M. No. 51374/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr. Akash Pratap Singh, Advs.

versus

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Devika Jain, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 19.02.2020

On 14.12.2018, the Court had passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has submitted that the entire income of project was brought to tax in the assessment year 2007-08 as the respondent/assessee was following the project completion method. It is also stated that the contract had commenced in the assessment year 2003-04 and in the assessment year 2004-05 also no addition was made. Principal Commissioner being the appellant would examine the aforesaid contention and file an affidavit in this regard within four weeks from today. Re-list on 15th March, 2019.”

In pursuance of that order, an affidavit has been prepared on behalf of

the appellant sworn by Dr. Banwari Lal, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Delhi.

An unattested copy of that affidavit has been tendered in Court by learned counsel for the appellant. He states that he shall be filing the duly attested affidavit in the Registry by tomorrow. In this affidavit, the respondents have, inter alia, stated as follows: “(i) That the respondent assessee had claimed before the assessing officer during scrutiny proceedings that 100% revenue was offered to tax in assessment year 2007-08 on the basis of Project Completion Method and there is no adverse comment of Assessing officer on this account in the assessment order passed. (ii) That the respondent/assessee was following the project completion method. (iii) That the contract had commenced in assessment year 2003-04. (iv) That no addition was made in assessment year 2003-04 on account of disputed issue. However in assessment year 2004-05, no scrutiny assessment was made.”

In view of the aforesaid position, the questions of law raised by the appellant do not arise for consideration in the present appeal.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 19, 2020 N.Khanna

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →