TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is a mistake apparent from record within the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. First, we take up the MA bearing No. 01/SRT/2020(in ITA No.32/Srt/2017), filed by the Revenue. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual. The assessee along with family members have sold the shares of two companies namely Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd and Speetech Equipment Pvt. Ltd to M/s Bilfinger Berger Industrial Service vide share purchase agreement dated 23rd November 2011. The assessee on the sale of such shares declared a long-term capital gain of 466,95,77,001/- which was reduced to 461,44,85,340/- in the revised return of income resulting the reduction in the income under the head long term capital gain by 45,50,91,661/- only.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee, has set aside the issue to the file of the AO after making certain observations as detailed under: i. The facts of subsequent recovery and its quantum by the buyer was not emanating from the settlement agreement with respect to Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore the same needs verification by the authorities below after taking confirmation from Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. ii. Similarly other recoveries for the debtors and payment of various liabilities as discussed above were not verified by the authorities below and correspondingly, no confirmation was either obtained by the AO or filed by the assessee from Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd and Speetech Equipment Pvt. Ltd. 4.1 Finally the ITAT in its order dated 31st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court was not available at the relevant point of time with the Revenue i.e. at the time of filing the MA. We further draw our attention to the question posed before the Hon'ble court which is detailed as under: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in not setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer instead of deleting the addition in relation to reduction in sales consideration to the extent of Rs. 8,85,60,312/- despite itself observing that the issue at point would also need appropriate verification by the lower The above question was answered by the Hon'ble court by observing as under: 9. It is hereby clarified that the Tribunal has allowed the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the revenue. 10. Coming to the MA No. 2/SRT/2020(ITA No.33/Srt/2017) in the case of Deepu Syamaprakash Vaidyan 11. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ITAT passed a combined order dated 31-07-2019 with respect to the four assessee as discussed above by restoring the issue to the file of the AO to allow the claim of the assessee after carrying out necessary verification and examination. But the Revenue did not prefer any appeal to the Hon'ble High Court in the present case. Therefore the order in the present case has not merged with the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. However, the facts of the case are identical to the facts of the case as discussed in MA No. 1/SRT/2020. Accordingly he claimed that there is no mi....