9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim - HELD THAT:- we find that the additions sustained by the Tribunal are based on material on record and on the basis of assessment of such material. When it was established that the liability of ₹ 17.50 lacs did not exist, as claimed by the assessee and that sum of ₹ 4.50 lacs was never paid to Mr. Amitabh Bachchan, we do not find that the Tribunal's view requires any interference. Voluntarily offered to tax the liabilities due to Mr. Abhishek Bachchan and Mr. Amitabh Bachchan in assessment year 2004-05 when the liabilities became time barred - Tribunal, while confirming above addition had given directions for not taxing the same income twice. HELD THAT:- we record the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal failed to appreciate the fact that no liability was created nor any deduction of expenses claimed in respect of ₹ 6,00,000/- which given for safe custody to Mr. Ram Mukherjee and which formed part of the appellant's cash balance? 2. By an order dated 12.2.2019, this Court had rejected the Question No. 3 but in relation to Question Nos. 1 and 2, desired to hear the Revenue. Following observations were made: 4. Question Nos. (i) and (ii) substantially overlapped. We are prima facie of the view that if the observations of the Tribunal made in paragraph 5.3 of the impugned judgment are implemented, the assessee's grievance made to a large extent be resolved. 3. We may refer facts in relation to both the questions: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue to collect the tax only in one year and the Revenue should have kept the tax for the later year in abeyance. 4. Question No. (ii) arises in the same and similar background. The assessee claimed that Glaxo, a company had shown desire to advertise its Asthma drug by utilizing photograph of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan for which agreed payment of ₹ 5 Lacs would be made. The assessee claimed that in turn, sum of ₹ 4.50 lacs would be paid to Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and the assessee would retain ₹ 50,000/- by way of commission. The assessee, however, later on contended that out of good relations, the payment was never made to Mr. Bachchan who waived the same from the assessee. The Revenue, however, did not accept this contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
