TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax Department. 2. The following four questions have been referred in this case, two at the instance of the assessee and two at the instance of the Department: "At the instance of the assessee : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in accordance with law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction in respect of a sum of Rs. 7,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) finding that duty drawback amounting to Rs. 2,51,448 can be termed as profits derived from industrial under taking and is accordingly required to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the deduction under sections 80HHA and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 3. So far as the first question is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to have been incurred should not be a contingent liability, that is to say it should not be contingent upon the happening or not happening of future events. 5. In the case before us, the assessee under the earlier contract was alleged to be liable to make payment of a certain amount on compensation. However, that liability stood modified by a subsequent contract between the parties, which provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee is claiming, is not a fixed liability but is a contingent liability and, therefore, the deductions sought by the assessee were not permissible under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. 8. Our answer to the first question referred at the instance of the assessee is that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction. 9. Question No. 2 is covered against the asse....