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 provision of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the assessee in the assessment year 2007-08 towards anticipated salary increase on account of implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission is an allowable deduction or is a contingent liability not deductible.
Analysis: The provision was created for services already rendered in the relevant previous year, with only quantification deferred pending formal sanction; the assessee has a long-standing, consistent accounting practice of creating such provisions based on historical data and reasonable estimation; the assessee, being a State Government undertaking, is bound to implement Pay Commission recommendations when sanctioned; precedents establish that where a business liability has its origin in the accounting year and is capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty, the liability is not contingent even if quantification or payment occurs later; the revenue contention that crystallisation only on formal government sanction renders the liability contingent was examined against the facts of consistent practice, the binding nature of pay revisions for the assessee, and controlling authorities on accrued liabilities and estimation.
Conclusion: The provision of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- is an allowable deduction and the disallowance is set aside; decision is in favour of the assessee.