9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of Rs. 36,09,654/- which was made on account of compensation and interest thereon. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that Section 60 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) has become infructuous because of settlement of title dispute by Civil Court. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that interest component of the enhanced compensation is snot chargeable in Assessment Year 2006-07. 4. That the order of the Ld.CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on the facts deserved to be set aside and the order of the AO be restored." 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is an Advocate. He filed his return of income on 13.09.2006 for the A.Y. 2006-07 declaring taxable income of Rs. 12,35,59 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakhs paid to land owners for receiving the said rights and that the entire amount was paid by the father Shri Ashok Kumar Singhal. That the father Shri Ashok Kumar Singhal has vide gift letter dt. 1.4.2003 gifted half share in the rights in the property to his son. (d) In a gift letter dt. 1.4.2003, it is not known as to how the name of Shri Varun Singhal appeared in the Hakuknama dated 19.6.2002. (e) The story of gift has been built up only during the course of proceedings. The gift has not been quantified in the gift letter. (f) The gift cannot be in any uncertain terms. When the assessee purchased right to receive compensation and interest thereon, it was not known as to how much amount he has actually received. 2.2. The Ld.AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court of the ADJ in LAR no.99/1988 has taken cognizance of this agreement and had decreed the issue in favour of the assessee. The decree stands in the name of both Shri Ashok Kumar Singhal and Shri Varun Kumar Singhal. The A.O. based his order on surmises. Hence we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Hence we dismiss this ground of appeal. 7. On the issue of taxability of interest the Ld.CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai vs. CIT (supra) and in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF reported in 315 ITR 1 (S.C.) The Ld.D.R. has not pointed out any contrary decision. Thus we uphold this order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
