TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the decision of this Court in case of CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd. [ 2010 (11) TMI 728 - ITAT, MUMBAI ] . The learned Counsel for the Appellant has fairly brought to our notice decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mum. vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd .[ 2 017 (11) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT ] to point out that the question raised would stand covered against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal is justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 74,53,20,769/- and not upholding the finding of the Income Tax Authorities below that the deferred Sales tax liability is chargeable to tax as business income of the assessee u/s.41(1) on remission thereof and instead treating the same as exempt from tax as capital receipt being remission of loan liability? (ii) Whether on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd future liability being actual collections of sales tax, retained in the business by the assessee in perpetuity, without having to pay the same to the State Government amounts to cessation / remission of liability u/s.41(1) of the I T Act , 1961 and hence taxable as the assessee s income ? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Appellant has fairly brought to our notice decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mum. vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. to point out that the question raised would stand covered against the Appellant revenue and the decision of this Court in CIT vs Sulzar is affirmed by the Supreme Court in this decision. In the circumstances, no substantial question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
