TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 39195608/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of remission of Principal amount of loan. ii) Whether in the facts of the present case remission of Principal amount of loan obtained from financial institution and banks constitutes a benefit or perquisite arising from business and would fall within the ambit of section 28(iv) of the Act. iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 990079/- made u/s 145A on account of excise duty leviable on closing stock. iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....still wants that the addition be sustained under provisions of Clause (iv) of Section 28 of the Act. The revenue is not disputing the facts on the basis of which decision of the Tribunal is based. Submission is that on these very facts, provisions of Section 28(iv) of the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Innvol Medical India Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxman 123 (Mad); Iskraemeco Regent Limited (Originally Seahorse Industries Ltd. and subsequently in Iskraemeco Seahorse Ltd.) vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 331 ITR 317 (Mad); Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 wherein it has been held as under:- "The principle appears to be that if an amount is received in course of trading transaction, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of 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 claim....