TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransaction, is not open to the Revenue to urge that in respect of the other part i.e. person making the payment, the transaction is not genuine. This is not permissible as the payment and receipts are two sides of the same coin. - Income Tax Appeal No. 716 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ. Mrs. S. V. Bharucha, for the Appellant Mr. Kushal Amin Patel i/b. S. K. Srivastav Co., for the Respondent ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 7th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal. The impugned order is a common order for the Assessment Years 200405 and 200607. This Appeal relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the impugned order records the fact that when the payment of compensation of ₹ 4.25 Crores was received by M/s. Magnum Ferromental Pvt. Ltd., for the surrender of tenancy rights in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 199495. The Revenue sought to tax the amount in the hands of M/s. Magnum Ferromental Pvt. Ltd. This being the consideration received for surrender of tenancy rights. In fact, in the case of M/s. Magnum Ferromental Pvt. Ltd., the Assessment Order dated 18th March, 1997 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act as well as the CIT(A) had held that the amount received on account of the surrender of its tenancy right, was taxable under the head 'income from other sources'. Both the authorities rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has rendered a finding of fact that the Revenue had itself accepted the transaction with regard to the recipient of the the amounts as surrender of tenancy to be a genuine transaction. Therefore, once the transaction is accepted by the Revenue to be a genuine in respect of one part of the transaction, is not open to the Revenue to urge that in respect of the other part i.e. person making the payment, the transaction is not genuine. This is not permissible as the payment and receipts are two sides of the same coin. 9 In view of the above, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 10 Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
