AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT has erred in observing that the AO had not obtained any details regarding the exclusion of Manglad Flash Flood Claim amounting to Rs. 13,45,47,750/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT has erred in concluding that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue ignoring the fact that the income so excluded in AY 2010-11 is offered to tax in AY 2011-12. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT has erred in nothing that the disputed amount should have been provided in the books of accounts which in fact it was as noted by the Learned CIT himself....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi and therefore, the same had been excluded from the current year income as this was a disputed claim and not actually received by the assessee. The ld. Counsel further submitted that no enforceable right to receive the said money was created in favour of the assessee and therefore, the assessee had rightly excluded the said amount from the current year's income. The ld. Counsel further submitted that this was clearly mentioned in the statement of total income filed along with the return of income and also mentioned by way of notes to accounts(note no 4) to the annual accounts of the assessee copies of which were now filed at page no.01 and page no.09 of the paper book respectively. The ld. Counsel vide letter dated 06-02-2015 replied the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Delhi High Court by M/s. SJVN Ltd disputing the said claim. 4. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the said claim was offered for taxation in the immediately succeeding year i.e. AY 2011-12 when the claim attained finality, the assessee entered into an agreement with the client which gave the unfettered right to receive the income from his client qua the claim and therefore, there was no loss of revenue to the Income Tax Department as what was excluded in the AY 2010-11 was offered to tax in AY 2011-12 by relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. G.R. THANGAMALIGAI passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court wherein it has been upheld that where there is no loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. The ld. DR on the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of water along with debris, silt, boulders, wood, trees etc, resulting into complete/partial destruction of machinery and equipment with loss of human life which led to additional cost being incurred by the assessee for clearing the debris from the project site as well as loss on account of extension of the project period due to loss of machinery, equipment and materials that were necessary for carrying out the construction activity. The assessee had to take advance from his clients in order to carry out such work which was not recovered in subsequent years by the client. The dispute arose between the assessee and his client regarding charging interest on the said advance which was deducted the payment made to assessee for the work done....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of Manglad Flash Flood which had been accepted for the assessment year 2007-08. The order is also not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessee itself offered the amount of claim of Manglad Flash Flood in the assessment year 2011-12, when the claim attained finality and thus, no prejudice was caused to the revenue. In the case E.D. Sasson & Co. (26 ITR 27) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that income can be said to accrue or arise when a debt comes into existence in favour of the assessee but the assessee must have also acquired the right to receive the payment. The real test of income is whether or not the assessee has an unfettered right to receive the same. However, in the present case M/s. SJVN Ltd. filed a cas....