9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. In view of the above stated facts and findings we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The various other decisions relied on by assessee in the paper book also supports its case. The submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in subsequent years, since subsidy receipt has been accepted by the Revenue, although u/s 143(1), and no action u/s 147 or 263 has been taken could not be controverted by the ld. DR. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the concession component received by the assessee Government company in the course of implementing government projects of PDS as its agent, the surplus of which, if any, was refundable or adjustable in future was not income of the assessee. - TAXC No. 74 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l questions of law in terms of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which are in the following terms: 1. Whether on points of law and on facts circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in setting aside the order of CIT(A) who upheld the addition of ₹ 1,94,31,98,824/- made by the assessing officer, thereby ignoring the assessee's own admittance of change in the method of accounting adopted during the financial year in hand as was mentioned in From 3CD at point no. 13(b), marked as 'Yes' and also in the note 1.4 of the change in accounting policy under 1 of Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2014, thereby rendering the decision which is perverse? 2. Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that a meticulous analysis of the facts and figures in the light of the legal provisions and precedents has been done by the Tribunal. It would be worthwhile to note that the subsequent events, insofar as, the assessee is concerned, have also specifically noted in paragraph 21, with regard to the changed stand of the Revenue in respect of the assessment for the subsequent years. To avoid repetition, we find it appropriate to extract paragraphs 20 21 of the order passed by Tribunal as part of the order so as to have a clear picture as to the course and events: 20. We find the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. in ITA No. 334/Ahd/2014 CO No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by stating that surplus earned from functioning of PDS on behalf of Government cannot be taxed in the hand of the assessee. In view of the above stated facts and findings we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A).' 21. The various other decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the paper book also supports its case. The submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in subsequent years, since subsidy receipt has been accepted by the Revenue, although u/s 143(1), and no action u/s 147 or 263 has been taken could not be controverted by the ld. DR. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the concession component received by the assessee Government company in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
