9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the entire amount of repayment is not liable to be deducted in computing the income in the year of receipt itself? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that only 1/5th of the amount can be claimed as deduction in each of the five years? 2. We have heard Dr.Anita Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 3. During the Assessment Year 1994-95, the appellant/assessee introduced a Fresh Novel Scheme known as "Money Back Novel Scheme" to the public. Under the said scheme, any person, who bought a plot of land from the appellant/assessee was assured of the return of the entire land cost upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank Housing Limited in a Scheme known as "Money Multiplier Scheme". The Fixed Deposit was to mature on 25.2.1999, with the maturity amount indicated as Rs. 62,186/-. 6. From the above facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded that upon receipt of the entire sale consideration from the buyer of a plot, the assessee created a Fixed Deposit for a period of five years in a particular scheme in a bank, so that the maturity amount of what was deposited, equalled the amount collected towards the cost of the plot in the first instance. 7. In view of what was reflected from the facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Calcutta Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of action. The appellant/assessee has accounted for the interest accruing on the Fixed Deposit Receipts, as their own income and the same has been accepted by the Department. The second consequence that may flow out of the issue of Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of the buyers of the plots is that they may foreclose the same and take away the proceeds even before the expiry of the period of five years. This may result in the bank not offering the benefit of a special scheme known as "Money Multiplier Scheme". Therefore, the Commissioner was right in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Calcutta Company Limited, would apply squarely to the facts of the case. The decision in M/s Madras Industrial Investment Corporation L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
