9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the assessee at an enhanced rate at that stage was an inchoate one as this extra amount did not accrue to the assessee until the finalisation of the dispute pending before the Court. In fact, this is also the view taken by the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd.[1986 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ]. - Decided against the revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1060 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And N. M. Jamdar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar along with N A Kazi For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Toprani a/with Ms. Keyuri Desai ORDER P. C. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 28 January 2008 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May 1997 was subject to final resolution of the dispute. Thus, it held that the amount received under an interim order cannot be considered as an income of the assessee as there is yet no absolute right to receive the amounts. The Tribunal further records that the B.M.C. had also filed a counterclaim and it was likely that the respondent-assessee would have to pay more than what has been given to her by the interim order. In the above view, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. v/s Hindustan Housing Land Development Trust Ltd., reported in 161 ITR 524 (SC) to hold that no income had accrued to the respondent-assessee during the subject assessment year. 5. The grievance of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was subject to several conditions. The amount was made available to the assessee on a bank guarantee and was to be refunded if the assessee lost in the writ petition. It was stated that, both the Andhra Pradesh and the karnataka High Courts, in identical circumstances, took the view that the amounts so received did not accrue to the assessee as its income until the finalization of the dispute. Shri Trivedi also invited our attention to the fact that, by its order dated December 17, 1990 (CIT v/s Nawabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR (St.) 74), the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition by the Department against a similar order dated August 18, 1983, of the Delhi High Court in I.T.C. No.184 of 1983. 5. Having hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
