9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 17th May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 200708. 2. This appeal raises the following questions of law for our consideration :"( i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in error in restricting the disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as correct in its decision that the amounts received from various public sector companies were only advances and not receipts of income, based on the percentage completion method followed by the Company?" 3. Regarding Question Nos.(i) & (ii):Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that both these issues stands concluded in favour of the respondentassessee and agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contract between the parties. The amounts in excess of that billed was shown as advance. The assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A) disallowed the same and sought to bring the entire amount received during the subject assessment years to tax with no nexus to the quantum of work done. (b) The impugned order of the Tribunal held that the income has only accrued to the respondent-asessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only arises when the same has accrued to the respondent-assessee who follows the mercantile system of accounting. (e) In the above view, being a finding of fact, question no.(v) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of rise. Thus, not entertained. 5. The Appeal admitted on the substantial questions of law at question nos. (iii) and (iv). 6. Registry is directed to communi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
