Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Jacobs Engineering vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Jacobs Engineering vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 18, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (jacobs_engg_foreseeable_anticipated_losses.pdf)

Even “foreseeable losses” are allowable as deduction

The assessee was engaged in the business of executing works contracts and was following the mercantile system of accounting and the “percentage completion method”. It claimed a deduction for “foreseeable losses” on incomplete projects which was disallowed by the AO and CIT (A) on the basis that it was merely an anticipated loss based on an estimate. It was also held that as a major part of the work was not completed, the losses could not be properly anticipated. On appeal by the assessee, HELD, allowing the appeal:

(i) Para 13.1 of Accounting Standard 7 (AS-7) mandates that a foreseeable loss on the entire contract should be provided for in the financial statements irrespective of the amount of work done and the method of accounting followed;

(ii) The fact that AS-7 has not been notified by the Central Government as an accounting standard for purposes of s. 145 (2) is not relevant;

(iii) In principle, anticipated losses on incomplete projects are allowable as a deduction subject to their being calculated as per AS-7.

See Also: Rotork Controls vs. CIT (Supreme Court): Estimated expenditure towards warranty is allowable u/s 37 (1)

Related Judgements

  1. Shri. Ranjeet Singh vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Where the assessee was assessed at Delhi but a notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO in Ghaziabad and the assessee had protested the usurpation of jurisdiction from the beginningRead more ›
  2. Zeus Air Services vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the notice u/s 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed period HELD the AO had no power to pass a block assessment order u/s 158BC and the same was null and void.
    Read more ›
  3. J. M. Share & Stock Brokers vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee was a stock broker but it was consistently following the practice of holding some shaes as ‘stock in trade’ and other shares as ‘investments’ and the question arose whether the profits on the sale of shares held as investments constituted a capital gain or business profits,…
  4. DDIT vs. Stock Engineer Contractor (ITAT Bombay) 

    No Permanent Establishment if only personnel supplied. (1) Where a Malaysian company supplied technical personnel to the assessee (a Dutch company) on terms that the personnel would remain under the control of the assessee and that the Malaysian company would … DDIT vs. Stock Engineer Contractor (ITAT Bombay)…
  5. Kanbay Software vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    The judgement in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors has to be understood in the correct perspective. It does not make a radical change in the law nor does it affect the basic scheme of s. 271 (1) (c). Even in K P Madhusudanan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99, the…