9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in ITA No.1930, 1931, 5906, 5907/Del/98 and ITA No.4201/Del/99, for the assessment years 1990-91; 1994-95; 1991-92; 1995-96; 1993-94 respectively. The issue in all the appeals is identical. Hence, all the appeals are disposed of by a consolidated order. On 12.1.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted these appeals on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was legally justified in holding that no "real income" accrued to the assessee whereas charge of interest @ 4% per month has been contemplated in agreement dt. 22.8.89 as also fortified by agreement dated 24.09.1993 ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered into an agreement on 2.5.1987. AOP has entered into another agreement on 15.7.1987 where the assessee has invested Rs.11.25 crore. The AOP has entered into an agreement on 26.5.1989 and handed over the land to M/s Acharya Arun Dev to develop it as per the agreement. In Clause-6 of the said agreement, it was provided that:- "6. It is further agreed that the Party of the Second Part shall on default of the above due payments pay an interest at the rate of 4% (four percent) per month for those amounts not paid on the due date and compounded every month it being expressly agreed that the time for payment shall in no event be extended beyond 28th February, 1990." Accordingly, the assessee became entitled to receive the interest from M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any money other than Rs.25 lac, which was received initially. Rs.11.25 crore is still pending with the opposite parties. He has also informed that the assessee is following mix accounting system and there is no hope to receive the said amount back. He also submits that the land in question had already been acquired by the Government but assessee is not getting any compensation and matter is still pending in the litigation. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 I.T.R. 315 (SC) has observed that it is real income, which is exigible and hypothetical or notional income is not taxable. In the instant case, member of the AOP have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
