Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of overhead expenses attributable to the incomplete project, when the assessee had consistently allocated head office overheads to the completed project and that method had been accepted by the Revenue in earlier years.
Analysis: The assessee had followed the same accounting method year after year, and that method had been accepted by the Revenue in earlier years. Although a different allocation could arguably present a more accurate picture of project-wise expenditure, the Revenue's prior acceptance of the method meant that it would be unfair to require a change for the relevant assessment years. The consistency of the method weighed against disturbing the position already adopted and acted upon over the years.
Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was upheld; the question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed, and the Tribunal's view deleting the disallowance of overhead expenses was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a method of accounting has been consistently followed by the assessee and accepted by the Revenue in earlier years, it should not ordinarily be disturbed for later years in the absence of a compelling reason.