High Court Of Delhi
Pr.CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta
S. Ravindra Bhat & Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.
ITA 946 & 947/2017, CM APPL.40188-40191/2017
8th November, 2017
Counsel Appeared:
Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Appellant. : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Sharad Agarwal & Nipun Sharma, Adv., for the Respondent.
ORDER:
The issues sought to be urged as question of law in these two appeals, i.e., whether the expenses claimed had in fact accrued or were contingent?, is no longer res integra; they have been concluded by the common judgment of this Court on 18.08.2017 in ITA 711/2011 and connected cases (Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. CIT). As is evident that judgment relates to past years in the case of the assessee/respondents involved in the present appeals. The conclusion in support can be noticed in paragraph 56.1/56.4 of the judgment where it was held that the assessee’s liability to pay enhanced license fee to the Railways for the assessment in question was an accrued liability that arises in the year in which the payment was issued. Therefore, the question sought to be urged are covered by the judgment in Jagdish Prasad Gupta (supra) and connected cases.
The appeals are consequently dismissed in the same terms.
[Citation : 405 ITR 29]
