TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligation was undertaken to meet a liability and only consequential effect was to be determined, it could not be said that the amount in question was in a nature of contingent liability. Nothing is shown to us how the view taken is erroneous in law or on facts. Additional question of law to the effect that the Tribunal erred in not treating as capital expenditure for computation of book profit under Section 115JB when this amount was treated by the Assessing Officer and accepted by Assessee as a capital expenditure. Not only this point was not urged before the Tribunal but it does not even find reference in the present appeal memo. It is not permissible for the Appellant to urge said question for the first time in this Court, that too ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order the appeal filed by the Appellant Revenue was dismissed. 3. We have heard Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant. 4. The Appeal is seeking to raise the following question as a substantial question of law :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances in the case and in Law, the Hon ble ITAT errerd in upholding the claim of the assessee that the amortized amount of exchange difference arising out of foreign currency borrowings are not contingent liability and should not form part of computation of Book Profit for the purpose of 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed before the Tribunal on a sole ground of the amount in question being a contingent liability. In view of such single focused ground before the Tribunal, the decision of the Tribunal was restricted only on that ground. The argument of Mr.Sharma that there was only a mistake in choosing the words wherein instead of the words - capital expenditure, the words - contingent liability were used, cannot be accepted, as why the amount was to be treated as contingent in nature was also specified in the said ground stating that the loss was on account of foreign exchange fluctuation. It is not permissible for the Appellant to urge said question for the first time in this Court, that too during the course of the oral argument. 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
