9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referred are two and the reference is at the instance of the assessee. The questions referred are: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the aggregate sum of Rs. 92,40,329 being interest received on IDBI bonds for a period of three years, was chargeable to tax in the assessment year 1989-90 instead of bringing to tax in the year t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account. The law laid down in that decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case as well. The first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee had entered into an agreement with its subsidiary company, Amphetronix Ltd., on April 18, 1986, which agreement was to be in force for a period of five years under which the assessee-company was to buy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim that if not the whole at least a part of that amount of Rs. 20 lakhs should be treated as capital receipt. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner held, which finding has been upheld by the Tribunal, that the payment of this Rs. 20 lakhs purportedly for the assessee agreeing to accept a restraint on its trading in goods similar to that manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profits which the subsidiary would have otherwise earned. The reason shown in the further agreement by which the earlier selling agreement was terminated, for the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs was therefore, rightly regarded by the Assessing Officer as also by the Tribunal, as only intended to lay the foundation for claiming and treating that amount as a capital receipt and not for any other reason. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
