2018 (1) TMI 1298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in anothr appeal the department, have challenged the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby the tribunal has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and allowed the appeal of the department. 2. This Court while admitting the Appeal No.147/2010 on 12.04.2010 has framed following substantial question of law:- "Whether the remission of principal amount of loan obtained from financial institutions and banks, constitutes a benefit or perquisite arising from business and would fall within the ambit of Section 28(iv) of the Act?" 2.1 While admitting Appeal No.123/2016 on 04.04.2017 has framed following substantial question of law:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the cae and inlaw, the ITAT was justified in deleting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act shall be attracted. It is a pure question of law and therefore, the amended ground as raised by the revenue can be allowed. The position in MCorp Global (P) Ltd. (supra) was entirely different. In that case, the transaction in question was treated as lease transaction in the earlier assessment years and depreciation was granted on that basis. However, in the assessment year in question, the same very transaction was treated as financial transaction and depreciation was disallowed. It was in this backdrop, the Supreme Court opined that the depreciation given to the assessee could not be withdrawn, (sic) when the finding of fact that the transaction in question was leased and not financial transaction had become final and had not been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 501 (Bom) and other judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P) Ltd. in ITA No.3704/2010 decided on 13.9.2012 and decision of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 343 (Guj.). 5. Counsel for the department Mr. Mathur has supported the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 251 ITR 527 wherein it has observed as under:- "We are inclined to think that in a case where a statutory levy in respect of goods dealt in b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revenue character, the amount changes its character when the amount becomes the assessee's own money because of limitation or by any other statutory or contractual right. When such a thing happens, commonsense demands that the amount should be treated as income of the assessee. The assessee had received deposits in course of its business which were originally treated as capital receipts. Some of the deposits were neither claimed by nor returned to the depositors. There is no dispute that the deposits were received in course of the carrying on of the business of the assessee. Although it was treated as deposit and was of capital nature at the point of time it was received, by influx of time the money has become the assessee's own mo....