Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Dy. CIT Vs. M/s. Gayatri Construction Co. (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 736/Ahd/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/01/2013
Related Assessment Year : 2003- 04
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

The impugned amount was not in the nature of penalty on account of disobedience or infraction of any law. In fact, the assessee being in the business of execution of Civil Construction work, therefore under an obligation to complete the contract within a specified time and in case of delay, he is subject to liquidated damages. The impugned amount was nothing but in the nature of liquidated damages, therefore allowable as business expenditure. We hold accordingly. The view taken by the ld.CIT(A) is hereby confirmed and this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

I.T.A. No. 736/Ahd/2010

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031