Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-10 v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta

$~31&32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 946/2017, CM APPL.40188-40189/2017 ITA 947/2017, CM APPL.40190-40191/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-10 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai with Mr. Sharad Agarwal and Mr. Nipun Sharma, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % O R D E R 08.11.2017 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. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 08, 2017 /vikas/ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J