9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered to tax in the subsequent year. As decided in MRS. HEMAL RAJU SHETE [ 2016 (4) TMI 1082 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-2007 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the respondent-assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement obtained a right to receive Rs. 20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 70 acres situated at Wagholi had sold to Wagholi Proprieties Pvt. Ltd. by a registered sale deed dated 02.05.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,80,04,250/- and the total share of the assessee is Rs. 24,31,08,750/- out of which the assessee had offered 50% of the actual consideration received for the purpose of Capital gain instead of full consideration as per the sale deed? C Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon ble ITAT erred in not appreciating the clause (v) and (vi) of Section 2 (47) of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer Property Act 1882. Thus, the entire Capital Gain correctly taxed in A.Y. 2009-10 by the AO? 2. Learned Counsel for the parties brought to our notice that the Revenue had preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is also an additional factor. In any event, the amounts of balance consideration as received by the assessee and as actually accrued, was offered to tax in the subsequent year. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the observations of the tribunal, which are relevant also in the assessee s case which reads thus: 47. In the instant case admittedly the assessee along with other co-owners was having land admeasuring 70 acres situated at Wagholi and was not having 108 acres of continuous land that had been agreed upon to be sold at the relevant time. Further the sale deed contained certain obligations on the part of the assessee and the co-owners to be fulfilled and the assessee has received only 50% of the compensati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the observations of the tribunal, wherein the Court in similar circumstances has made the following observations:- 8. In the present case, from the reading of the above clauses of the agreement the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years i.e. 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Further the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the respondent-assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years. Thus in case M/s. Unisol does not make net profit in terms of the formula for the year under consideration for payment of deferred consideration then no amount would be payable to the respondent- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive the income. There must be a debt owed to him by somebody. There must be as is otherwise expressed debitum in presenti, solvendum in futuro . . . . In this case all the co-owners of the shares of M/s. Unisol have no right in the subject assessment year to receive Rs. 20 crores but that is the maximum which could be received by them. This amount which could be received as deferred consideration is dependent/contingent upon certain uncertain events, therefore, it cannot be said to have accrued to the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal in the impugned order has correctly held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-2007 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the respondent-assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 obtained a right to receive Rs. 20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
