9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of integrated circuits. The assessee had filed return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 declaring total loss of Rs.49,11,440/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed. However, during the course of scrutiny proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07, it was found that the assessee had received some interest waiver and the same was not offered for tax and the assessment was reopened. Even in the year under consideration assessment was reopened based on 2006-07 assessment. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received waiver of interest as One Time Settlement [OTS] to the exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirement, the amount of interest on such loans waived may be assessed as revenue receipt and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the same and pass fresh order. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred appeal and the assessee filed Cross Objection before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in so far as application of section 41(1) is concerned, no benefit under section 43B was availed by the assessee in earlier years. Therefore, provisions of section 41(1) have no application to assessee's case. In so far as application of 28(iv) is concerned, the assessee has received a cash benefit and therefore, section 28(iv) is not applicable and relied on the decision in the case of Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. v. CIT 331 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act speaks about the benefit or perquisite received in kind. Such a benefit or perquisite received in kind other than in cash would be an income as defined under section 2(24) of the Act. In other words, any transaction which involves money, section 28(iv) has got no application. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. [130 ITR 168]. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed that "if what is received either by way of benefit or perquisite is money, there is no question of considering the value of such monetary benefit or perquisite under clause (iv) of section 28. It is only if the benefit or the perquisite is not in cash or money that section 28(iv) would apply and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
