9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal dated 17.1.2005. The questions of law no.1, 2 and 3 sought to be answered in this appeal read as under: "1. Whether on a due and correct interpretation of the charging section 4 of the Income Tax Act read with section 28 of the Income Tax Act, the ITAT was correct in holding that the sums aggregating Rs. 44,81,194/- made up as under: (i) Contract no.BCCL/CE/4289-92 dt.10.04.1983 Rs.6,69,925.00 (ii)Contract no.BCCL/CE/4278-82 dt.10.04.1985 Rs.6,69,925.00 (iii)Contract no.BCCL/CE/4293-97dt.10.04.1985 Rs.6,69,925.00 (iv)Cost of suit 3 x 20000 Rs. 60,000.00 (v)Interest on the amount of compensation for withholding money 3 x 803906.60 Rs.24,11,418.00 Total Rs.44,81,194.80 were in the nature of trading receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee before the assessing officer. It is also recorded in the concurrent orders that the assessee had other business also and the contract which was cancelled was not the sole contract of the assessee and therefore the cancellation of the contract had not been effected the trading structure of the business of the assessee. The assessee was having other sources of income and therefore the termination of the contract with BCCL was nothing but was normal incident of business. Other than that the assessee was free to carry on his trade because there was no restriction on the assessee that he would not be able to execute any other contract and therefore the tribunal came to the conclusion that the money received by the assessee from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to arbitration. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, respondent received a certain amount under the awards of the arbitrators and the amount so awarded included interest for delay in payment of the amounts due to it. The appellate tribunal held that, out of the amount awarded, the interest to be taken into account for the assessment year was Rs. 2,77,692. The respondent claimed that the interest of Rs. 2,77,692/- was of the same nature as the other trading receipts, and since assessment had been completed by applying a net profit rate of ten per cent to the trading receipts, only ten per cent, thereof, was assessable in its hands. But, the appellate tribunal held that the amount of interest had to be del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BCCL to make the aforesaid payment to the assessee vide order dated 14.2.1995 latest by 31.5.1997 and the assessee received the amount in 1997-98 and thus the amount was payable by 31.5.1997 as per order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and actually received in the year under consideration. The assessee may be following mercantile system of accounting but that is not going to make any effect as the assessee was not entitled to get the amount in A.Y.1995-96 because the Apex Court has directed to pay the amount by 31.5.1997 and assessee also received the same in the same year and thus relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and A.O. and the learned CIT (A) has rightly assessed the same in the year under consideration." Such being the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
