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

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 Posts:

  • Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of…
  • Kaushik N. Tanna vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since, in the present case, the order has been pronounced one day beyond 90 days prescribed under the Rules, we respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble High Court discussed above, recall the order dated 09.11.2017 without going into the merits of the other grounds raised in the application, for…
  • Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is clear from the above decisions that in case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition is required to be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases
  • Kamal Galani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is the case of the Ld. AO that account with HSBC bank , Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened…
  • M/s. Deekay Gears vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before…
  • Shilpa Shetty vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the view that since chapter 10 pre-supposes the existence of "income" and lays down machinery provison to compute ALP of such income, if it arises from an „International transaction‟. Section 92 is not an independent charging section to bring in a new head of income or to…

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…