9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract and the interest thereon received would all constitute revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 119 of 2005, Income Tax Appeal No. 247 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Appellant : S. K. Garg For the Respondent : CSC,B.J. Agrawal ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As the controversy involved in both the appeals is identical, the same is decided by a common judgment and order by treating the Income Tax Appeal no.119 of 2005 as the leading case. This is assessee's appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of tribunal dated 17.1.2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this year itself? (3)Whether the view taken by the ITAT about the year of taxability of the sums aggregating ₹ 44,81,194/- was not vitiated in law by non-consideration of the legal position that the assessee had acquired enforceable right to receive the compensation as early as on 14th February, 1995 when the award given by the sole arbitrator was allowed by the apex court itself, to become the rule of court? The tribunal has examined the matter at length and has recorded findings of fact that the amount of compensation received by the assessee was on account of the cancellation of contract because the BCCL could not provide site to each of the assessee for raising construction. It has been noted in the tribunal's ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected by the authorities below and the A.O. has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury and Sons. 203 ITR 881. We have also looked into the decision of Hon'ble Punjab ^ Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs.Chiranji Lal Multani Mal Rai Bahadur Pvt. Ltd. 179 ITR 157 and the other decision in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty vs. CIT, 66 ITR 465 referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee before the ld.CIT (A) but fact remains that the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (supra) is fully applicable. The factual position of the ratio of their Lordships laid down in the case is as under: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not paid at the proper time and interest was awarded to the respondent for such delay, the interest was only an accretion to the respondents' receipt from the contract and was attributable to an incidental to the business carried on by it. The interest payable to the respondents partook of the character as a receipt for the payment of which it was otherwise entitled under the contract and which payment had been delayed as a result of disputes between the parties. The interest awarded could not be separated from the other amount granted to the respondents under the awards and treated as Income from other sources. It is well settled that interest can be assessed under the head Income from other sources only if it cannot be br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
