9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Per Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order, dated 25.06.2002 passed by the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in I.T.A.No.25/V/2002. The facts, in brief, are as under: The respondent is a manufacturer of electrical conductors of different categories. An item of conductor manufactured by it was supplied to a purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Smt K. Neeraja, learned counsel for the respondent. The facts, that gave rise to the filing of the appeal, are not in dispute. The entire controversy turns around the question as to whether the respondent has acquired the right to receive the balance of 10% of the consideration for the conductor supplied to its customer. The plea of the appellant is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uality, admittedly, did not take place within that assessment year. The Tribunal has dealt with the matter extensively by referring to quite a large number of precedents on the subject. For example, in Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P.) Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax 66 ITR 159, the Supreme Court explained subtle itself between the words accrued and arise, on the one hand, and actual receipt, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it emerges that the respondent was no doubt entitled to receive 10% of the consideration for the goods supplied by it. However, the corresponding obligation of the recipient of the goods would have arisen only when a certificate, to the effect that the quality conform to the specifications. That event, admittedly did not take place, by the time the order of assessment was passed. We agree with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
