TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Before the CIT(A) and before us, it was argued that capital gains under development agreements arose when they were entered into in the earlier years. Hence, the capital gains did not arise in the year under appeal. We have held that the addition made by the A.O. on the basis of development agreements did not accrue in this year as no transfer had taken place during the year. It is to be understood that the assessee himself had offered a certain portion of the gains as business profits for the year under appeal and which has been treated as capital gains. This amount was not on appeal and it is only in respect of the additions, the grounds raised by the assessee that they did not accrue was considered and accepted. The additions made by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property during the year and hence the addition was deleted by Tribunal. The question of deleting the income offered by the assessee himself was not before the Tribunal, since there was no such treatment given by the assessing officer, and hence not decided by the Tribunal. Thus, it is a case where the addition made by the assessing officer has been deleted by the Tribunal. In the consequential proceedings that the assessing officer takes up for giving effect to the order of the Tribunal, the assessing officer has to strictly adhere to the directions of the Tribunal. 10. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the income-tax authorities are required to exercise their powers in accordance with law, as per the power given to them ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the authorities and the Tribunals to ignore the decisions of the High Court or to refuse to follow the decisions of the High Court on the pretext that an appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court which is pending or that steps are being taken to file an appeal. If any authority or the Tribunal refuses to follow any decision of the High Court on the above grounds, it would be clearly guilty of committing contempt of the High Court and is liable to be proceeded against." 11. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention the observations of the High Court, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Subramanian ITO V/s Siemens India Ltd. (156 ITR 11), which are as follows- "Reference may also be invi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having decided the appeal of the assessee, viz. ITA Nos.1687/Hyd/2010 with its order dated 7.5.2012, the Tribunal is ceased of its jurisdiction over that appeal, except to the limited extent of rectifying any mistake therein in terms of provisions of S.254(2) of the Act. In the present elaborate Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has not pointed out any mistake in the order of this Tribunal dated 7.5.2012, which warrants rectification in terms S.254(2) of the Act. All that the assessee speaks of is about the grievance that it has suffered on account of the consequential orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration, while giving effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 7.5.2012. That consequential order pas....