<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (9) TMI 1263 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462946</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals challenging the CIT(A)&#039;s orders for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06. The tribunal upheld the allowance of 100% depreciation on temporary structures erected by the assessee on land not owned by it, recognizing these as purely temporary erections removable upon contract completion. The assessee&#039;s claim was supported by facts that the structures had no earth foundation, were used temporarily for contractual purposes, and the cost was borne by the assessee. Regarding the provision for bund maintenance, the tribunal held the provision was a legitimate business liability estimated on a rational basis following accepted accounting principles and AS-7. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court and HC precedents allowing deductions for accrued liabilities maintainable on mercantile accounting. Consequently, both issues were decided in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:38:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 1263 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462946</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals challenging the CIT(A)&#039;s orders for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06. The tribunal upheld the allowance of 100% depreciation on temporary structures erected by the assessee on land not owned by it, recognizing these as purely temporary erections removable upon contract completion. The assessee&#039;s claim was supported by facts that the structures had no earth foundation, were used temporarily for contractual purposes, and the cost was borne by the assessee. Regarding the provision for bund maintenance, the tribunal held the provision was a legitimate business liability estimated on a rational basis following accepted accounting principles and AS-7. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court and HC precedents allowing deductions for accrued liabilities maintainable on mercantile accounting. Consequently, both issues were decided in favour of the assessee, and the Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>