Mazagaon Dock Limited v. JCIT

29 SOT 356Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#4665 most cited

What is Mazagaon Dock Limited v. JCIT authority for?

Anticipated or foreseeable losses on fixed-price construction contracts are deductible in the year the loss is foreseen, aligning with accounting standards like AS-7. This approach is supported by decisions allowing deduction of foreseeable losses based on technical estimation.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Mazagaon Dock Ltd v JCIT · anticipated loss · foreseeable loss · fixed price contract · percentage completion method · AS-7 · Section 24(1) · Section 41(1) · Section 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 24(1)trade creditorspercentage completion methodsection 40a(2)(b)section 41(1)section 40a(2)tax benefitsection 36(1)(vii)section 41commercial expediencysection 40areasoned order

Judgments citing Mazagaon Dock Limited v. JCIT

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 6589/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(9)Section 80HSection 92C

…as an expense immediately in the relevant assessment year. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judicial precedents which have been taken into consideration. In the case of Mazgaon Dock Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income, Spl. Range, Mumbai : [2009] 29 SOT 356 18 (Mumbai), deduction for foreseeable losses was allowed by the Tribunal holding as under: “9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. The short dispute is whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of AS-7, is to be allowed in the year in whi…

DCIT- Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 642/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle- M/S Itd Cementation India 5(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, National Plastic Building, A- Air India Building, Nariman Subhash Road, Paranjape B Point, Scheme, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaact 1426 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Prakash Rastogi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 37

…nditure. The and held 'yes' it is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal while deciding this issue has also considered Tribunal while deciding this issue has also considered Tribunal while deciding this issue has also considered the decision of Mazagaon Dock (29 SOT 356). the decision of Mazagaon Dock (29 SOT 356). the decision of Mazagaon Dock (29 SOT 356). 19. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the 19. Considering the facts of the case in the light 19. Considering the facts of the case in the light accounting standards and the decisions of the accounting standards and the decisions of the account…

L and T Mhps Turbine Generatiors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4766/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

…re not treated as a single construction contract in accordance with paragraph 8.” 4. The claim of expected loss from a fixed price contract has been held to be allowable by the co-ordinate benches in the following cases:- (a) Mazgaon Doct Ltd vs. JCIT (2009)(29 SOT 356)(Mum) (b) Jacobs Engineering India P Ltd vs. ACIT (2011)(14 taxmann.com 186) (c) Dredging International N V vs. ADIT (2011)(15 taxmann.com 198) (d) ACIT vs. ITD Cementation India Ltd (2013)(36 taxmann.com 74) Identical views have been taken in the above said cases by the co-ordinate benches. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relev…

Tremco Roffing & Facility Services Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3350/CHNY/2018[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3350/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Tremco Roofing & Facility The Asst. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.60, B-1, First Floor, Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), Ganesh Towers, First Avenue, Chennai. 100 Feet Road, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. [Pan: Aadct 5389H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Farookh Irani, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai In I.T.A No.85/2016-17 Dated 26.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Based On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tremco Roofing & Facility Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant') Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 26 September 2018

For Appellant: Shri Farookh Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 250

…rd Governor India Private Limited (2009) 179 Taxman 326; 3. Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2011) 14 taxmann.com 186 (Mumbai \Tribunal); 4. Dredging International N.V. vs ADIT (2011) 48 SOT 430 (Mumbai Tribunal); 5. Mazagon Dock Ltd vs JCIT (2009) 29 SOT 356 (Mumbai Tribunal); 6. ACIT vs Triveni Engineering & Industries (ITA 346 of 2009) (Delhi HC); 7. ACIT vs M/s ITD Cementation India Ltd (ITA 2991/Mum/2011) (Mumbai Tribunal); 8. ACIT vs Ashoka Buildcon Ltd (ITA 394/PN/2007) (Pune Tribunal); 9. Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (2000) 112 Taxman 61 (SC); 10. CIT vs Metal Box India Ltd (192) 63 taxman 160 (C…

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed and the appeal in ITA

ITA 475/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 8119/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, A-36, Mehtab House, Mohan Co- Circle-11(2), Op Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110044 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…r Anticipated Losses: (AY 2016-17) 25. The assessee has claiming provision for anticipated losses on the grounds that Accounting Standard 7 on construction contracts allows such provision. He relied on the judgments in the case of Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. JCIT 29 SOT 356, Dredging International Vs ACIT 48 SOT 430 wherein the loss on estimated basis determined on technical estimation has been allowed. 26. The ld. DRP held that this liability has not been crystallized during the relevant period and disallowed the loss owing to the 13 Humboldt Wedag India Pvt.Ltd. absence of cogent evidences to prove that the liabil…

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed and the appeal in ITA

ITA 8119/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 8119/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, A-36, Mehtab House, Mohan Co- Circle-11(2), Op Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110044 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…r Anticipated Losses: (AY 2016-17) 25. The assessee has claiming provision for anticipated losses on the grounds that Accounting Standard 7 on construction contracts allows such provision. He relied on the judgments in the case of Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. JCIT 29 SOT 356, Dredging International Vs ACIT 48 SOT 430 wherein the loss on estimated basis determined on technical estimation has been allowed. 26. The ld. DRP held that this liability has not been crystallized during the relevant period and disallowed the loss owing to the 13 Humboldt Wedag India Pvt.Ltd. absence of cogent evidences to prove that the liabil…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…issue of accounting for project loss based on Accounting Standard 7, some of which are as under:- a. Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 335/Mum./2007 & 336/Mum./2007). b. Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Mazagaon Dock Limited Vs. JCIT (29 SOT 356). 12 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 c. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor of India Private Limited (294 ITR 451). d. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor of India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) 312 ITR 254 (SC). 17. On the proposition t…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…issue of accounting for project loss based on Accounting Standard 7, some of which are as under:- a. Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 335/Mum./2007 & 336/Mum./2007). b. Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Mazagaon Dock Limited Vs. JCIT (29 SOT 356). 12 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 c. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor of India Private Limited (294 ITR 451). d. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor of India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) 312 ITR 254 (SC). 17. On the proposition t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5776/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…issue of accounting for project loss based on Accounting Standard 7, some of which are as under:- a. Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 335/Mum./2007 & 336/Mum./2007). b. Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Mazagaon Dock Limited Vs. JCIT (29 SOT 356). 12 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 c. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor of India Private Limited (294 ITR 451). d. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor of India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) 312 ITR 254 (SC). 17. On the proposition t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1349/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…issue of accounting for project loss based on Accounting Standard 7, some of which are as under:- a. Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 335/Mum./2007 & 336/Mum./2007). b. Hon’ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Mazagaon Dock Limited Vs. JCIT (29 SOT 356). 12 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 c. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor of India Private Limited (294 ITR 451). d. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor of India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) 312 ITR 254 (SC). 17. On the proposition t…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1950/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…vate Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal Nos. 7017 and 7018 (Mum.) of 2006 and 335 and 336 (Mum.) of 2007, dated 26-5-2009] the Mumbai Tribunal has held that the provision for foreseeable losses under AS-7 is an allowable expenditure. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [20091 29 SOT 356 (Mum.). [Para 27] Keeping the principle laid down on this issue in various coordinate bench decisions, it is held that assessee's claim for provision for loss, which was made in accordance with the guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in the audited accounts of the company is an allowable expenditure Therefore, DRP was not correct in rejecting the…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1410/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…vate Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal Nos. 7017 and 7018 (Mum.) of 2006 and 335 and 336 (Mum.) of 2007, dated 26-5-2009] the Mumbai Tribunal has held that the provision for foreseeable losses under AS-7 is an allowable expenditure. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [20091 29 SOT 356 (Mum.). [Para 27] Keeping the principle laid down on this issue in various coordinate bench decisions, it is held that assessee's claim for provision for loss, which was made in accordance with the guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in the audited accounts of the company is an allowable expenditure Therefore, DRP was not correct in rejecting the…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1212/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…vate Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal Nos. 7017 and 7018 (Mum.) of 2006 and 335 and 336 (Mum.) of 2007, dated 26-5-2009] the Mumbai Tribunal has held that the provision for foreseeable losses under AS-7 is an allowable expenditure. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [20091 29 SOT 356 (Mum.). [Para 27] Keeping the principle laid down on this issue in various coordinate bench decisions, it is held that assessee's claim for provision for loss, which was made in accordance with the guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in the audited accounts of the company is an allowable expenditure Therefore, DRP was not correct in rejecting the…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…able to demonstrate in reality in the subsequent year. 3. I also observe that the appellant's claim for deduction of foreseeable losses in execution of contracts is an allowable deduction is supported by the following judgments: Mazagon Dock Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (29 SOT 356) (ITAT Mumbai) "The question that came up for consideration was as to whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of the AS-7, was to be allowed in the year in which the contract had been entered into or it was to be spread over a period of contract, as was done by the assessee in ea…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…able to demonstrate in reality in the subsequent year. 3. I also observe that the appellant's claim for deduction of foreseeable losses in execution of contracts is an allowable deduction is supported by the following judgments: Mazagon Dock Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (29 SOT 356) (ITAT Mumbai) "The question that came up for consideration was as to whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of the AS-7, was to be allowed in the year in which the contract had been entered into or it was to be spread over a period of contract, as was done by the assessee in ea…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…able to demonstrate in reality in the subsequent year. 3. I also observe that the appellant's claim for deduction of foreseeable losses in execution of contracts is an allowable deduction is supported by the following judgments: Mazagon Dock Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (29 SOT 356) (ITAT Mumbai) "The question that came up for consideration was as to whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of the AS-7, was to be allowed in the year in which the contract had been entered into or it was to be spread over a period of contract, as was done by the assessee in ea…

M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [IT appeal nos. 7017 and 7018 (Mum) of 2006 and 335 and 336(Mum) of 2007, dated 26.05.2009] the Mumbai Tribunal has held that the provision for forseeable losses under AS-7 is an allowable expenditure. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT [2009] 29 SOT 356 (Mum). [Para 27] Keeping the principle laid down on this issue in various Co-ordinate Bench decisions, it is held that assessee’s claim for provision for loss, which was made in accordance with the guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in the audited accounts of the company is an allowable expenditure. Therefore, DRP was not correct in rejecting th…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [IT appeal nos. 7017 and 7018 (Mum) of 2006 and 335 and 336(Mum) of 2007, dated 26.05.2009] the Mumbai Tribunal has held that the provision for forseeable losses under AS-7 is an allowable expenditure. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT [2009] 29 SOT 356 (Mum). [Para 27] Keeping the principle laid down on this issue in various Co-ordinate Bench decisions, it is held that assessee’s claim for provision for loss, which was made in accordance with the guidelines of AS-7 and duly debited in the audited accounts of the company is an allowable expenditure. Therefore, DRP was not correct in rejecting th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1348/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…issue of accounting for project loss based on Accounting Standard 7, some of which are as under:- 1. Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 335/Mum./2007 & 336/Mum./2007). 2. Hon'ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Mazagaon Dock Limited Vs. JCIT (29 SOT 356). 3. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Government of India Private Limited (294 ITR 451). 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor of lndia Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) 312 ITR 254 (SC). On the proposition that reasonably estimated liability on the date of drawing the accounts has t…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…issue of accounting for project loss based on Accounting Standard 7, some of which are as under:- 1. Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 335/Mum./2007 & 336/Mum./2007). 2. Hon'ble Bombay Tribunal in the case of Mazagaon Dock Limited Vs. JCIT (29 SOT 356). 3. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Government of India Private Limited (294 ITR 451). 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor of lndia Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) 312 ITR 254 (SC). On the proposition that reasonably estimated liability on the date of drawing the accounts has t…