TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding accounting of such listing fee income and under similar circumstances, the said system was accepted by assessing Officer while passing orders u/s 145(3) of I.T. Act and no addition has been made. It is further noticed that even in the case of Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd, the listing fee is recognized only from those companies where income is not over due for more than one year and in that case also as per copy of assessment order u/s 145(3) dated 4-12-2008 for assessment year 2006-07 on this account no addition has been made and contrary to this case in the present case the appellant stock exchange is recognizing the listing fee as income where income is not over due for more than 3 years. With this discussion AO was not justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon ITAT Jaipur Bench B Jaipur order dated 30.04.2010 in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2006-07. However, the Tribunal has decided the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 30.04.2010 in favour of the assessee by upholding the finding of ld. CIT (A). We are reproducing para 32 33 of order of Tribunal as under :- 32. After having gone through the above decisions, we find that there is substance in the above contention of the ld.AR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas Co, (supra) has held that if any accrual system, the probability or improbability of realization has also to be considered in a realistic manner. In the case of Chainrup Sampatram Vs. CIT, supra , the Hon'ble Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Pune Bench in the case of Wstern Maharashtra Dev. Corpn. Ltd Vs. DCIT , 114 TTJ 54 has deleted the addition made on account of accrued interest on the seed money loan since, recovery was uncertain. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Giriraj Udyog (P) Ltd , 273 ITR 495 has held that the mercantile system only recognizes the income that has accrued and where there is no chance of recovery, the assessing officer is not justified in bringing into tax such amount as accrued income because where there is no prospect of recovery income cannot be considered to have accrued at all. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Consultng Engg. Services (India) Ltd, 250 ITR 849 has held that the method of accounting consis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
