TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is concerned, both the parties before us did not dispute that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier order of the Tribunal contained at page 4 of the paper book vide Tribunal's order dated 25th January, 1994 for the assessment year 1986-87 in ITA No.343/Del/90 and order dated 23rd June, 1993 for the assessment year 1985-86 in ITA No.4002/Del/89. In view of such mutually accepted position, we sustain the order impugned in this regard by following our earlier order cited supra and reject the stand of the revenue." 3. The appellant Revenue contends that having regard to the phraseology of Section 37(4) and Section 37(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act", for short) as it stood at the relevant point of time, these expenses were clearly not deductible. It is submitted that the term "residence by whatever name called" would employ all the kinds of accommodation used for transit accommodation of the employees of a company, for the duration of their visit to the place concerned. Saying this clearly brought out the parliamentary intention to execute from the ambit of Section 37, the deduction as a business expense. Counsel for the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at by the lower authorities are that the assessee had to execute a project in Iraq; it had contracted for supply of labour services especially providing for temporary accommodation to its workers and employees. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that the intention of the assessee was not to provide "guest house" accommodation for those who visited the project site on "tour" or "visit". In other words, even though the accommodation provided in this case was for the entire duration of the project, what is sought by Section 37(4) and 37(5) is the type of accommodation provided to the employee who merely used them on transitory or temporary basis and not in the circumstances of the present case. Any other interpretation would do not only violence to the express term - having regard to the controlling expression of "tour" and "visit" but also undermine the object of the provision. 4. For these reasons this question is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. The second question which is referred in this appeal is as follows :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in holding that the depreciation claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. After notification, the Finance Minister's speech and also considering the contentions, the High Court rejected the Revenue's contention stating as follows :- "On consideration of rival submissions, we are unable to accept the view put forward by learned counsel for the revenue. The speech of the Finance Minister clearly shows the purpose of exclusion by way of proviso of claims for depreciation of imported cars incorporated by the second proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was not to deny depreciation on foreign cars used in foreign countries for business abroad. It cannot be denied that cars used for business abroad at a foreign site is eligible for claiming depreciation, but for the proviso. There is no justification to read the proviso as excluding the said benefit which is otherwise a legitimate claim. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee for depreciation on foreign cars used at foreign sites for its business is clearly admissible. We, accordingly, decide these questions against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 8. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t company to account for the profits in respect of these projects on percentage completion basis instead of waiting for the completion of the project to account for the entire profitability of the project and the very same method has been consistently followed by the company and accepted by the Income tax department. The method employed by the appellant company is as under:- a) No profit on construction of a multi-storeyed project is recognized and recorded unless the progress of the project reaches 30% in the terms of the expenditures incurred and the projected total expenditure. b) When the progress reaches 30% or more, profit or loss is computed by taking on the debit side of the P&L account the costs incurred and on the credit side the same percentage of the sale values received/receivable as the cost actually incurred till the end of the year bears to the total estimated project cost. This percentage method continues to be employed every year till the progress of the project reaches 90% or more. c) When the progress of the project reaches 90% or more, then the profit of the project is accounted for by taking on the credit side 100% completion i.e, the entire sales val....