DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital

300 ITR 75High Court2008#1931 most cited

What is DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital authority for?

Expenditure incurred by an assessee in one assessment year, which is allowable as a deduction in that year, can be taxed in a subsequent year if it is written back. The deduction in the earlier year is a prerequisite for taxation in the subsequent year.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital · 300 ITR 75 · accrued liability · write-back · allowable deduction · taxation in subsequent year · assessment year 2009-10 · assessment year 2010-11

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital

Smec International Pty. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 5926/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Range-2, M/S. Smec International Pvt. Ltd., Bansal’S Flat, P-39 , 1St New Delhi Floor, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi Pan : Aaics3406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. M. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Giving Effect To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short ‘Drp’). The Grounds Raised In Appeal Were Modified Through An Application Dated 24/09/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Rejecting Books Of Account As There Are No Descrepancies & The Lower Profit Is No Reason To Reject The Books Of Account & The A O Is Also Wrong In Holding That The Separate Project Wise

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 163Section 40Section 44BSection 44D

…he learned Authorized Representative placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in 10 AY: 2008-09 ITA No. 1121/2009 dated 05/01/ 2010, CIT Vs. Escorts Ltd., 338 ITR 435 (Delhi) and DIT(E) Vs. Escorts Cardiac Disease Hospital Society, 300 ITR 75( Delhi). 3.2.6 The learned Authorized Representative further submitted that the Assessing Officer had not given any basis for applying a rate of 10% net profit on the receipt and which has been picked up from section 44BBB of the Act, which was otherwise not applicable. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer ign…