1986 (6) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee as to why this amount should not 'be treated as the assessee's income during the relevant accounting year and after getting the assessee's reply he added back this figure. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the opinion that in paragraph 6 of his direction the IAC had himself observed that keeping in view the facts and decision cited, he was of the opinion that the liability on account of licence fee incurred as per contract with the excise department was totally allowable. Thereafter referring to Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC), 32 CTR 221 (sic), Addl. CIT v. T. Nagireddy & Co. [1976] 105 ITR 669 (AP) and CIT v. Kashiram Agrawalla [1983] 37 CTR (Pat.) 111 he ordered that the addition of Rs. 9,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....close down its shops. The fact that the assessee made such a claim does not necessarily mean that the whole of the amount claimed accrued to the assessee. Every kind of claim on the basis of contractual obligations will not necessarily involve accrual of income. For example, in the case of Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ITO [1985] 11 ITD 335 (Pune) (SB) the assessee had filed a writ petition in a High Court challenging the action of the Government in fixing the rate of levy sugar and he was allowed by the High Court to receive a higher rate subject to a bank guarantee. It was held that the ITO was not justified in treating the impugned excess realisation as part of sale price and taxing it as a revenue receipt. Again in the....