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

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 8458/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07
For Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh

…he decisions relied upon by the assessee, viz. CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC); CIT vs. Triveni Engineering & Industries ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 374 (Del), as well as by the tribunal in the case of Mazagon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 29 SOT 356 (Mum) and Jacob Engineering vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA Nos. 335 and 336/Mum/2007 dated 26.5.2009) were explained and (A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2009-10) Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd. distinguished. The working of the profit/loss on the different projects on a proportionate basis; the assessee following the percentage completion method, considered proper by…

SHI vs. Hahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 8251/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh

…he decisions relied upon by the assessee, viz. CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC); CIT vs. Triveni Engineering & Industries ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 374 (Del), as well as by the tribunal in the case of Mazagon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 29 SOT 356 (Mum) and Jacob Engineering vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA Nos. 335 and 336/Mum/2007 dated 26.5.2009) were explained and (A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2009-10) Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd. distinguished. The working of the profit/loss on the different projects on a proportionate basis; the assessee following the percentage completion method, considered proper by…

ACIT, Chennai vs. V.S.L.India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA

ITA 1703/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…rd 7 is conclusively a provision and same cannot be allowed. Further, the ITA Nos.1701 to 1703/2013. :- 14 -: decision of Mumabi Bench, has not reached finality and distinguishable and made an addition. 8.3 India Ltd (73 ITR 83) (SC) and Mazagon Dock Ltd (29 SOT 356) Mumbai which has considered the case of Jacob Engineering India (P) Ltd (supra) the method of arriving the deduction was based upon a bonafide method with the consequence of effecting the profit of subsequent years. In assessee’s case foreseeable loss has been arrived after evaluating the work in progress which will reduce automatically in su…

ACIT, Chennai vs. V.S.L.India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA

ITA 1702/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…rd 7 is conclusively a provision and same cannot be allowed. Further, the ITA Nos.1701 to 1703/2013. :- 14 -: decision of Mumabi Bench, has not reached finality and distinguishable and made an addition. 8.3 India Ltd (73 ITR 83) (SC) and Mazagon Dock Ltd (29 SOT 356) Mumbai which has considered the case of Jacob Engineering India (P) Ltd (supra) the method of arriving the deduction was based upon a bonafide method with the consequence of effecting the profit of subsequent years. In assessee’s case foreseeable loss has been arrived after evaluating the work in progress which will reduce automatically in su…

ACIT, Chennai vs. V.S.L.India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA

ITA 1701/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…rd 7 is conclusively a provision and same cannot be allowed. Further, the ITA Nos.1701 to 1703/2013. :- 14 -: decision of Mumabi Bench, has not reached finality and distinguishable and made an addition. 8.3 India Ltd (73 ITR 83) (SC) and Mazagon Dock Ltd (29 SOT 356) Mumbai which has considered the case of Jacob Engineering India (P) Ltd (supra) the method of arriving the deduction was based upon a bonafide method with the consequence of effecting the profit of subsequent years. In assessee’s case foreseeable loss has been arrived after evaluating the work in progress which will reduce automatically in su…