TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held it to be capital in nature. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to disturb the reasoned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter as such. - Decided against revenue - ITA no.7313/Mum./2013 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Love Kumar For The Assessee : Shri Kishor Chaudhari ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 24th September 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 27, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009 10. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. Whether on the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was allowed more time to make payment of the purchase price to the assessee and his wife. According to the assessee, because the builder has broken the terms of the contract, therefore, the builder is required to pay compensation for damages. The amount of ₹ 69,13,649, represents such liquidated damages received by the assessee and it is a part of the total amount that is receivable by the assessee towards sale consideration which is not income of the assessee. The assessee, in support of this contention, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, (Civil Appeal no.385 386 of 1999) decided on 14th March 2000). The Assessing Officer, however, made the addition keeping in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion received for breach of contract is not chargeable to tax at the time of receipt but it would go to reduce the cost of acquisition of the asset while reckoning capital gains at the time of its ultimate sale and as the possession of the property is still with the appellant, sale of the asset is not complete and hence, the amount added by the Ld. AO cannot be the subject matter of the addition in the A.Y. 2009-10 impugned before me. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement, 192 Taxmann 300 (SC) and CIT Vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn., 161 ITR 386 (SC). 2.4.8 In the case of Rafique A. Malik v/s DCIT, [2004] 3 SOT 11 (Mum.), the Hon ble Mumbai Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
