CIT v. Dinesh Kumar Goel

331 ITR 10High Court2011#1311 most cited

What is CIT v. Dinesh Kumar Goel authority for?

Income is recognized when it is absolutely ascertained, determined, and specified, conferring an exclusive right of receipt upon the assessee, irrespective of the accounting period.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Dinesh Kumar Goel · 331 ITR 10 · Delhi High Court · ascertained income · right to receive · accrual income · timing of revenue recognition

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 375

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 195(1)Section 244ASection 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 127
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 36(i)(va)section 145(1)true and full disclosuresection 145(2)right to receivestatement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 153(a)retraction of statementsection 271aabpercentage completion methodsection 43c

Judgments citing CIT v. Dinesh Kumar Goel

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. M B Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…t year 2021-22, for the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The Courts have consistently taken the view that in such cases, the Revenue should not agitate the issue. Reference is made to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CII v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10, wherein, referring to CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom), Hon'ble Court has observed thus, "....... The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue does not…

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…t year 2021-22, for the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The Courts have consistently taken the view that in such cases, the Revenue should not agitate the issue. Reference is made to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CII v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10, wherein, referring to CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom), Hon'ble Court has observed thus, "....... The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue does not…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3923/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…t year 2021-22, for the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The Courts have consistently taken the view that in such cases, the Revenue should not agitate the issue. Reference is made to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CII v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10, wherein, referring to CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom), Hon'ble Court has observed thus, "....... The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue does not…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. M. B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3874/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…t year 2021-22, for the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The Courts have consistently taken the view that in such cases, the Revenue should not agitate the issue. Reference is made to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CII v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10, wherein, referring to CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom), Hon'ble Court has observed thus, "....... The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue does not…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 20, Delhi vs. M.B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3870/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…t year 2021-22, for the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The Courts have consistently taken the view that in such cases, the Revenue should not agitate the issue. Reference is made to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CII v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10, wherein, referring to CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom), Hon'ble Court has observed thus, "....... The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue does not…

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, South East Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…t year 2021-22, for the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The Courts have consistently taken the view that in such cases, the Revenue should not agitate the issue. Reference is made to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CII v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10, wherein, referring to CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom), Hon'ble Court has observed thus, "....... The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue does not…

M/S. Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1827/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sourya Towers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ms. Rra Taxindia, Circle-23(1), D-28, South Extension, New Delhi Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aahcs9332F

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

…year under consideration, in the earlier year and in the subsequent year and thereby making the entire dispute raised by the revenue academic. 9. Similar view was also taken by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dinesh Kumar Goel reported in 331 ITR 10 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- “26. Though our discussion on the issue is complete, the parting comments need to be made. The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the in- stant year would be shown in Sourya Towers Pvt. Ltd the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these y…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-16(2), Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 291/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 289/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 292/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, ACIT-11(2), 32nd Floor One International Circle-16(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-3, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Marg, Elphinstone Mill Compound, Maharashtra-400013. PAN : AACFD4815A Assessee) : Respondent) Assessee /Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar,…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 291/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 291/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 289/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 292/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, ACIT-11(2), 32nd Floor One International Circle-16(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-3, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Marg, Elphinstone Mill Compound, Maharashtra-400013. PAN : AACFD4815A Assessee) : Respondent) Assessee /Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar,…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Joint Range- 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 289/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 291/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 289/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 292/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, ACIT-11(2), 32nd Floor One International Circle-16(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-3, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Marg, Elphinstone Mill Compound, Maharashtra-400013. PAN : AACFD4815A Assessee) : Respondent) Assessee /Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar,…

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…t year 2021-22, for the entire exercise is revenue neutral. The Courts have consistently taken the view that in such cases, the Revenue should not agitate the issue. Reference is made to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CII v. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10, wherein, referring to CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom), Hon'ble Court has observed thus, "....... The receipts relate to the unexecuted packages, which are not shown in the instant year would be shown in the succeeding year. Rate of tax in respect of companies remains the same in all these years. Therefore, the Revenue does not…

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 215/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., A-201, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, Pan No. : Aabcr7091N. ….. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ms. Nikhila Bhalla and Archita Bhalla Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., A-201, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, PAN No. : AABCR7091N. ….. APPELLANT Vs. DCIT, Circle 15(3) (1), Room No. 473, Aayakar Bhawan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400 020. ….. RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ajit Jain, Ms. Nikhila Bhalla and Archita Bhalla Ld. ARs Respondent by : Shri Yogesh Kamat Ld. CIT-DR Date of hearing : 02/09/2024 Date of pronouncement : 09/09/2024 ORDER 1. This app…

JCIT (OSD) Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3548/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…t. Ltd. with no obligation to return the same, the income is absolutely ascertained determined and specified over which the appellant has exclusive right in contravention of the Judgement of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of CIT VS Dinesh Kumar Goyal 331 ITR 10 which is squarely applicable in case of assessee. 7. That the learned CIT(A) had acted against the law and facts by incorrectly holding that assessee acquire a right to received the 8 membership fees and the amount received by appellant in its own right and there was a debt incurred by the payers in favour of appellant and amount received by appel…

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 326/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…t. Ltd. with no obligation to return the same, the income is absolutely ascertained determined and specified over which the appellant has exclusive right in contravention of the Judgement of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of CIT VS Dinesh Kumar Goyal 331 ITR 10 which is squarely applicable in case of assessee. 7. That the learned CIT(A) had acted against the law and facts by incorrectly holding that assessee acquire a right to received the 8 membership fees and the amount received by appellant in its own right and there was a debt incurred by the payers in favour of appellant and amount received by appel…

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6228/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…t. Ltd. with no obligation to return the same, the income is absolutely ascertained determined and specified over which the appellant has exclusive right in contravention of the Judgement of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of CIT VS Dinesh Kumar Goyal 331 ITR 10 which is squarely applicable in case of assessee. 7. That the learned CIT(A) had acted against the law and facts by incorrectly holding that assessee acquire a right to received the 8 membership fees and the amount received by appellant in its own right and there was a debt incurred by the payers in favour of appellant and amount received by appel…

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5109/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…t. Ltd. with no obligation to return the same, the income is absolutely ascertained determined and specified over which the appellant has exclusive right in contravention of the Judgement of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of CIT VS Dinesh Kumar Goyal 331 ITR 10 which is squarely applicable in case of assessee. 7. That the learned CIT(A) had acted against the law and facts by incorrectly holding that assessee acquire a right to received the 8 membership fees and the amount received by appellant in its own right and there was a debt incurred by the payers in favour of appellant and amount received by appel…

ITO Ward - 7(1), New Delhi vs. Devika Gold Homz Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 563/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usito, Vs. Devika Gold Homz Pvt. Ltd, Ward-7(1), Stilt Floor, Devika Tower, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aalcs4525J Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…cumstances, the questions of law, therefore, are decided in favour of the assessee. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed.” 8. This decision has duly considered the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Goel reported in 331 ITR 10 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd reported in 358 ITR 295 (SC). 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and accordingly, ground 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…ion 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected. Basing on the decisions reported in CIT Vs Dinesh Kumar Goel reported in 331 ITR 10 (Delhi), R.S.Suriya Vs ACIT reported in 41 ITR(T) 282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be trea…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…ion 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected. Basing on the decisions reported in CIT Vs Dinesh Kumar Goel reported in 331 ITR 10 (Delhi), R.S.Suriya Vs ACIT reported in 41 ITR(T) 282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be trea…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2048/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…ion 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected. Basing on the decisions reported in CIT Vs Dinesh Kumar Goel reported in 331 ITR 10 (Delhi), R.S.Suriya Vs ACIT reported in 41 ITR(T) 282 (Chennai Trib.) and Dr. Aman Khera Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 138 ITD 443 (Delhi), he submitted that since the assessee did not perform all the obligations as agreed to, the entire Page 25 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch amount cannot be trea…