9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed before the Tribunal, it was clear that Mr. Martin was the tenant and he was to receive this amount. The assessee was never the tenant and when it transferred the property by way of sale to Salisbury, it was left with no right, title or interest therein - In view of this, it is clear that the answer must be given in favour of the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 26-8-2004 - Judge(s) : B. C. PATEL., BADAR DURREZ AHMED. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by B.C. Patel C.J.- This reference is at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1974-75 and the question referred to the court is as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 8,64,000 received by the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which you will be occupying comprising 600 sq. ft. on the fifth floor of the London International Press Centre Shoe Lane, E.C. We will pay a further sum of £24,000 (twenty-four thousand pounds) as an agreed contribution towards rents and outgoings, such sum to be paid five years after the first payment." Thus, Salisbury was required to pay a total sum of £24,000 and a further sum of £24,000 as indicated hereinabove. However, it appears that the assessee received this amount and credited this amount (£24,000) in the profit and loss account for the year ending on March 31, 1974, under the description "compensation for termination of tenancy in London office". The second instalment became payable after five years from July, 1973. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or there was no question of reimbursement of the amount by the employee. We say so because there is nothing on record. In any event, it is clear that the assessee himself cannot be the tenant in his own premises. Furthermore, what is important to note here is that in the deed dated February 1, 1973, it is made clear that Mr. Martin agreed to vacate the premises and Salisbury agreed to make the payment to Mr. Martin. If Mr. Martin became a tenant of the premises in his own right before the purchase of the property in question by Salisbury, looking to the nature of the evidence referred to by the Tribunal, the amount ought to go to Mr. Martin and if it is credited to the account of Mr. Martin, then it would be a capital receipt in his hands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
