2018 (11) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without appreciating that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was fully permissible in law? II. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT ought to have held that the amount of Rs. 10 crore did not accrue in AY 200708 in view of the facts that: (a) the relevant transactions could be completed only after the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which repeal took place after the relevant year; (b) s.2(47) relied on by the AO was admittedly not applicable as the present case was not one of transfer of capital assets; and (c) under the relevant agreements, the amount of Rs. 10 crore did not at all fall due in the previous year relevant to AY 200708?" 3. Brief facts are as under: Appellant-assessee is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel for the assesee argued that there is no prohibition for the assessee following mercantile system or project completion system in one project and the cash method of accounting in the another. Learned counsel further argued that the land in question was within the purview of Urban Land Ceiling Act. Such Act was abolished in the State of Maharashtra only with effect from 29th November, 2007. On the date of assignment, therefore, no rights accrued in favour of assignee. It was, therefore, that once the Urban Land Ceiling Act was abolished, the parties executed a sale deed in favour of the purchaser in which the assessee was the confirming party. Learned counsel further submitted that in any case the entire income was offered to t....