Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 766 - AT - Income TaxProvision of repairs and maintenance of office building Proper evidences not shown Provisions to be treated as contingent liability Held that:- The assessee had made a claim under the head provision for repairs and maintenance, that the bills for repairs were received by it in the succeeding year, that the AO had disallowed the expenditure - Neither before the AO nor before the FAA, the assessee had furnished the basic document that could prove that repairing work was actually carried out during the year - The assessee has not led evidence that could prove that finding arrived at by the officers of the department was factually incorrect - the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Relying upon M/s. Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - provision can be made an allowed in certain conditions - Deductions are not permissible for anticipated losses or contingent liabilities, even if they are inevitable - Merely because an expense is claimed to be relating to a transaction of a particular year, it does not become a liability payable of that year unless and until it is established that the liability was determined and crystallized in the year on the basis of maintaining accounts on the mercantile basis - incurring of expenditure for repairing was not established by the assessee for the year under appeal and so-called provisions made by it does not fall under the criteria as laid down by the courts for allowing provisions , the contentions raised by assessee rejected Decided against Assessee.
|