9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in setting aside the case to the file of the AO with the direction to the A.O. to verify whether compensation has been received by the assessee or not, without appreciating that the assessee itself had declared this compensation in its P & L account as 'other Income'. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in not appreciating the fact that compensation and interest on such compensation has already been settled vide order dated 12.05.1992. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in deleting disallowance of Rs.3,21,952/- made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch that enhanced compensation is received. Cost of acquisition in that case would be taken as 'nil'. Clause (c) provides that wherever there is any reduction in compensation or enhanced compensation, then capital gains would be recomputed with respect to such reduced compensation and reduced enhancement. 18. The Assessing Officer accordingly, will verify as to whether assessee has received any compensation during the year in question. If it is so, then it will be taxable accordingly, if not then it will be taxable in the year when it is actually received. So far as interest is concerned, it will be taxable as per decision in Rama Bai's case on accrual basis from year to year with respect to the year to which it pertained, but on its final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department to be relevant provisions of law to avoid assessment for payment of the duty. The amount cannot be treated to be penalty, which can be disallowed. We do not find any error of law in the order of ITAT. So far as question no.6 is concerned, we find that the ITAT has merely reiterated the position of law as it has been interpreted in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). The Supreme Court has held that in view of the use of the words "in accordance with the provisions of Para (2) & (3) of Schedule (vi) of the Companies Act" no adjustment should be made on book profit as computed by assessee except those provided under that section. No exception can be taken to this position of law, which has been upheld by this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
