9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act "), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short " the Tribunal ") : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest amount of Rs. 51,317 was not liable to tax? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier years. The following amounts were awarded by the arbitrator: Rs. (i) Towards execution of work 1,46,101 (ii) Interest for the period from June 1, 1973, to July 31, 1977 51,317 1,97,418 The award was upheld by this court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 68 of 1978 by judgment dated February 23, 1979. The amount was received by the assessee on June 4, 1979. The assessee filed a return cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xable, but assessed the entire amount of interest as income of the assessee since, according to him, the matter was under challenge before the Supreme Court. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the assessment of Rs. 1,12,124, but deleted the inclusion of Rs. 51,317 relying on the decision in Govinda Choudhury and Sons' case [1977] 109 ITR 497 (Orissa). Both the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant time, the payment of interest should not have been taken as income and, therefore, the first question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as the second question is concerned, we find that the Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in B. P. R. Construction and held that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer and the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
