9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenges the judgment and order dated 24 August 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA No. 6170/Mum/2014. The relevant Assessment Year is 2009-10. 2. The Respondent - Assessee is a company engaged in business of five star deluxe hotels. For the relevant assessment year, the Respondent - Assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 43,17,69,664/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in nature as it creates a continuing binding obligation on the date of the contract against the assessee. We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal that in the present case where an obligation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
