9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compensation paid – the expression used in section 48 of the Act, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer has wider connotation than the expression, ‘for the transfer’ - the transfer would not have taken place and the payment has necessarily to be made for the transfer of the hotel - the sum was expended by the assessee wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the capital asset and not de hors the transfer – Decided against Revenue. - G.A. No. 172 of 2014, G.A. No. 227 of 2014, ITAT No. 20 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2014 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Arindam Sinha,JJ . For the Appellant : Mr. O. P. Dubey For the Respondent : Mr. R. Bharadwaj ORDER The Court: The appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Tribunal. It is this order of learned Tribunal which is under challenge. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the sum of Rs.72 lakhs paid by the assessee pursuant to the award passed in favour of Onkar Management Private Limited can be treated as expenditure incurred with regard to the transfer under Section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act. Section 48 inso-far-as the same is relevant or material for our purpose, reads as follows: 48. The income chargeable under the head Capital gains shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely:- (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gains. The money applied in repayment of the debt due by the assessee is no less a money received by the assessee. The present case is altogether different. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee/respondent, has drawn out attention to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bradford Trading Company Private Limited, reported in 2003 (261) ITR 222 (Madras). An almost identical situation had arisen before the Madras High Court. The facts briefly were that the assessee had entered into an agreement with one Buhari, agreeing to allow the latter to participate in the hotel business. The assessee subsequently sold the hotel to ITC and settled the matter with Buhari at a sum o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
