https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57579 The Tribunal ruled that the forfeited deposit by the assessee for breach of contract was taxable income, not a capital receipt, as it represented compensation for the premature termination of the lease. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 33,000 as cash credits, considering the creditors' agricultural income. It directed the ITO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard before imposing interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 50,000 to the gross profit from the arrack business due to incomplete and inaccurate accounts. The Tribunal partly allowed both the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:38:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57579 The Tribunal ruled that the forfeited deposit by the assessee for breach of contract was taxable income, not a capital receipt, as it represented compensation for the premature termination of the lease. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 33,000 as cash credits, considering the creditors' agricultural income. It directed the ITO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard before imposing interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 50,000 to the gross profit from the arrack business due to incomplete and inaccurate accounts. The Tribunal partly allowed both the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57579