TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has noticed that the assessee was not given the land till 2013 (even after expiry of more than three years). Further, the assessee also could not show that it did incur any expenditure against the provision so made by it. As pointed out by Ld CIT(A), the question of incurring expenditure would arise only upon handing over of the relevant portion of land to the assessee. These facts support of the case of the revenue that there is no clarify as to whether the assessee is required to discharge the said liability or not. In the absence of clarity on this point, coupled with the fact that the assessee has not been handed over the relevant portion of land, we are of the view that the tax authorities are justified in disallowing the claim of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is further provided that the assessee shall hand over both the above said buildings at free of cost to M.C.G.M. As on 31.3.2010, the assessee had not constructed the above said built up area. However, since it is liable to construct the above said area and is required to hand over the same at free of cost to M.C.G.M and since it is part of the condition of sanction of the project approved by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the assessee provided for a sum of ₹ 1,22,10,000/- towards construction of the above said built up area and claimed the same as deduction. Even though the project was approved way back in 2004, the assessee claimed the above said provision only in the year relevant to the assessment year 2010-11, since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision made with relevant evidences. Accordingly, the AO did not agree with the claim of Provision for expenses and accordingly disallowed the claim of ₹ 1,22,10,000/-. 5. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the land, where the construction of Municipal staff quarters and Road depot was to be undertaken, was not allotted to the assessee till date. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) took the view that the liability fasted upon the assessee in this regard was contingent upon the allotment of land for the stated purposes and the said liability existed right from 29.9.2004 onwards. The Ld CIT(A) also noticed that the assessee could not furnish the details of expenses, if any, incurred against the provision made. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) took the view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on the terms and conditions of sanction of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme to show that it is liable to construct Municipal staff quarters Road depot and hand over the same at free of cost to M.C.G.M. Since the liability has been imposed upon the assessee as per the terms of sanction of the scheme, it is contended that liability is an ascertained liability. It is submitted that the liability was claimed during the year under consideration, since the entire sales revenue has been offered during this year. 9. On the contrary, even though the tax authorities have accepted the fact that the assessee has been imposed with a liability, they noticed from the actual conduct of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure against the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
