TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should state the case and raise and refer the following question to this Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) holding that the sum of ₹ 4,04,218 being reimbursement of the amount paid by Western Ministil Ltd. to the assessee towards reimbursement of the tax liability of the assessee is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year 1983-84. Accordingly, it paid to the assessee the said sum of ₹ 4,02,418 which represented the additional tax liability incurred by the assessee. In the assessment year 1983-84, the ITO brought receipt of this sum of ₹ 4,02,418 to tax in the hands of the assessee. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted that addition. This deletion has been confirmed by the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;the Act') has no application to the facts of the present case because in the case of the assessee no allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment year 1976-77. The receipt of the said amount by way of reimbursement of tax liability also does not fall within the ambit of section 28(iv) because the receipt of the said amount is not a benefit arising from the business of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
