TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : A. N. Mahajan, C.S.C. For the Respondent : Ashish Bansal, S. K. Garg ORDER We have heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the income tax department. Shri Ashish Bansal appears for the respondent assessee. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2001-02 has been preferred on the following questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in setting aside the case to the file of the AO with the direction to the A.O. to verify whether com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.10 or 11 or 12. The compensation received does not fall in any of these categories." So far as questions nos.1 and 2 are concerned, in paragraphs 17 and 18 the ITAT has recorded its opinion as follows:- "17. Thus, as per clause (a), compensation awarded in the first instance would be taxable under the head capital gains of previous year in which such compensation or part thereof was first received. Clause (b) provides that when such compensation is enhanced than that enhanced compensation would be the capital gains in the year in which that enhanced compensation is received. Cost of acquisition in that case would be taken as 'nil'. Clause (c) provides that wherever there is any reduction in compensation or enhanced compensation, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Excise Department, the assessee is required to recover a basic minimum percentage of alcohol from the molasses and if he failed to do so, the additional duties are levied. The lesser recovery could not be equated with any infraction of law or any offence. The reliance was placed for the decision in I.T.A.T., 'G' Bench Delhi in the case of JCIT v. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. [2005] 96 ITD 468 (Del.). Following the above ruling, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the above addition." By way of settlement or compromise entered into with the department to be relevant provisions of law to avoid assessment for payment of the duty. The amount cannot be treated to be penalty, which can be disallowed. We do not find any error of law in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
