9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi dated 9.12.2010 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of white crystal sugar. It filed its return of income on 25.11.2006 declaring total income of ₹ 1,01,251/-. The Ld.AO completed the assessment u/s 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing relief on account of addition made in respect of UP Trade Tax and Interest on Excise Duty of ₹ 14,05,285/-." 3. We have heard Ms.Shumana Sen, the Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. Sanjay Sood, the Ld.Counsel on behalf of the assessee. 4. Rival contentions h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived but cleared on later dates and paid on subsequent year. The liability was booked in view of giving the true and fair picture of the balance sheet. Therefore the same should not be disallowed. As the assessee company has itself admitted of having not made payment of this provisional liability, this amount of ₹ 40.81 lacs cannot be allowed and is accordingly added to the total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liability in question is ascertained liability and hence allowable under the mercantile system of accounting. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee made a statement at the Bar that these liabilities were discharged in the immediately succeeding Assessment Year. This is a timing issue i.e. the year of allowability of the expenses is in dispute. On the principle of consistency, we are of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
