2020 (2) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. 2. The Appeal challenges the order dated 17 May 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( the 'Act'). 3. This Appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10. 4. The Appellant-Revenue raises the following questions as substantial questions of law : '(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s decision in Solid Containers Limited and Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd. etc.? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in not holding that while the amount of Rs. 32.55 Crores prepaid, as NPV is equivalent to the future liability of Rs. 107.08 Crores the difference of Rs. 74.53 Crores betwe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and should alternatively be taxed as Capital Gains?' 5. The Tribunal in the impugned order while deciding the question regarding difference between deferred sales tax liability and its Net present value has opined against the Appellant revenue following the decision of this Court in case of CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd. (2010) 6 ITR (Trib) 604(SB)(Mumbai). The lear....