9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 (5) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT ] has also held that in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a substantial question of law . Revenue appeal dismissed. - ITA 1/2021 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate with Mr. Vipul Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. R. Madhav Bera, Advocate with Mr. Paritosh Jain, Mr. Divyansh Jain, Mr. Dennis Panmei, Mr. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,57,01,194/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Krishna Vs. PCIT (2020), 114 taxmann.com 197 (SC). 4. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in limine against the judgment of this Court in Vikram Krishna (supra). It is settled law that summary dismissal of Special Leave Petition does not mean approval by the Supreme Court of the view taken by the High Court. Further, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that in view of the peculiar facts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of this, the observations of the AO as mentioned above does not seem to have factual legs. 13. The perusal of AO/JCIT's comments in the remand report clearly shows that no distinction between the two deals has been pointed out either during assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings. It has been the claim of the appellant that both the deals were entered into during the year under consideration in the normal course of business and the AO could not accept one with the outside party and reject one with the associate corporate entity. It is seen that the appellant had received an amount of ₹ 2,50,00,000 from N.H. Learning Infrastructure Services Ltd in pursuance of the agreement to sell and the said receipt of amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments by M/s Apra Auto India P. Ltd to the appellant rather than other way round. The transaction of proposed sale of commercial space, being on commercial considerations and in the normal course of business of the appellant clearly comes in the exception clause of section 2(22)(e). In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the AO to the tune of ₹ 10,57,01,194 is directed to be deleted. Finding of the Tribunal:- 17. In nutshell, the assessee has also not received any advance in the nature of loan or advances as contemplated in the section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 but received advance against sale of commercial space developed by the assessee on his own land in collabo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfered with. In fact, the Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a substantial question of law . 7. In any event the impugned judgment in no manner can be said to be in contravention of the judgment of this Court in Vikram Krishna (supra) which admittedly proceeded on the peculiar facts of the said case. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
