9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. In view of such facts, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal which calls for any interference by this Court. None of the question of law proposed by the revenue can be termed as substantial question of law. Hence, this appeal fails. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 90 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2020 - MR. J.B. PARDIWALA AND MR. BHARGAV D. KARIA JJ. Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ORAL ORDER (PER : MR.BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act, 1961 ) at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 2nd August, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re that the assessee along with his family members sold the shares of Neo Structo Construction Ltd. and Speetech Plant Equipment Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year relevant to the impugned assessment year. These shares were sold to M/s Bilfinger Berger Industrial Services GmbH, in terms of share purchase agreement dated 23.11.2011. In the original return of income filed on 26/09/2012, the assessee has shown the gross sale consideration amounting to ₹ 99,92,36,247/- from sales of shares of New Structo Construction Ltd and ₹ 10,80,99,343/- in respect of sale of shares fo Spetech Plant Equipment P. Ltd. Subsequently, the assessee revised his return of income on 22.03.2013 wherein he reduced the gross sale consideration in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Write off of Debtors not recoverable ₹ 7,20,38,896/- and payment of various liabilities on behalf of the seller ₹ 1,79,33,927/- 8,99,72,823/- 36,81,709/- 9,36,54,532/- 3 Less: Subsequent recovery from NAFTO Gas 1,02,37,597/- 1,02,37,597/- 4 Total 21,72,09,497/- 36,81,709/- 22,08,91,206/- 5. The Assessing Officer on reading of paragraph No.3.3.1 of the Non-compete, Non-Solicitation and Indemnification agreement, rejected the claim of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his submission before the lower authorities have submitted that there is subsequent recovery of ₹ 1,02,37,597/- from Netfogas and the same has been offered to tax by adjusting and increasing the sale consideration corresponding to his shareholding. Again, this fact of subsequent recovery and the quantum of subsequent recovery is not emerging from the settlement agreement and the same would need appropriate verification by the lower authorities and confirming from Neo Structo Construction Limited. 41. Besides short recovery from Netfogaz, the assessee has also claimed write off of Debtors not recoverable amounting to ₹ 7,20,38,896/- and payment of various liabilities on behalf of the sellers amounting to ₹ 1,79,33,92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
