Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 432 - ITAT MUMBAIWaiver of advance as Business Income - said advance was in the nature of revenue as it was sales consideration for the electricity to be supplied in the future and, thus, the adjustment of the advance was to be made by way of supply of electricity - CIT(A) upheld the same by holding that the advance received by the assessee was revenue receipt - HELD THAT:- Advance received by the assessee is revenue advance as is clear from the fact that the same is to be discharged/repaid/adjusted by way of supply of energy to the holding company. We have also perused the decisions relied upon by the AR in defence of his arguments in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra And Mahendra [2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT] and Solid Containers vs. DCIT [2008 (8) TMI 156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . However, the facts underlying the said decisions are different and the ratio laid down cannot be applied to the present case. In the said decisions, the advance raised by the assessee were of capital in nature and, therefore, they are not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Capital gain computation - not allowing the claim for cost of improvement capitalized with cost of land, while computing the Long Term Capital Gains - HELD THAT:- The issue of developmental expenses of land could not be examined by the AO as the assessee could not produce the documents being damaged and mutilated in the building collapse. Now the learned AR submitted before the Bench that the assessee has genuinely incurred these expenses and the same as to be treated as part of cost of property while computing the cost of land. It is further submitted that the assessee has reconstructed the record, which could be produced before the AO. DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments of the learned AR by submitted that the assessee has failed to produce the record before the authorities below and no second round should be allowed to the assessee to prove its case. After analysing the facts on record, we observe that it would be in the interest of justice, if the assessee is given one more opportunity to explain its case before the AO by filing the necessary evidences of expenditure incurred on development of the land. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|