TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal on Contract Receipts Addition Dismissed</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax-III Versus NJ Devani Builders Pvt Ltd</h3> The Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main ... - Issues involved:The judgment involves the issue of addition made by the Assessing Officer for paying the contract receipt not included in the Profit & Loss Account, challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal.Summary:The Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.6.2008. The main question raised was regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 24,90,224/- as work receipt credited but not shown in the accounts.For the assessment year 1995-96, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of Rs. 26,45,804/- for the assessee respondent, making an addition of Rs. 24,90,244/- for contract receipts not included in the Profit & Loss Account.The assessee challenged the Assessing Officer's order before the CIT (Appeals), which allowed the appeal after considering the submissions.The Revenue further appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.The Tribunal's order was challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal, focusing on the addition made for work receipts not shown in the accounts.The Tribunal, after examining the orders of the adjudicating authorities, found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was related to advance receipts not shown in the accounts. The CIT (Appeals) supported the assessee's position, stating that the advance received should not be treated as income until the work is executed.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (Appeals) that the advance received against the purchase of material before work execution should not be considered as income. It noted the consistent practice of showing advance receipts in the balance sheet and offering them for taxation after work execution.Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals), finding no error in their decision and no substantial question of law for the Court to determine. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
