TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions as substantial questions of law, for consideration of this Court: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in not setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer instead of deleting the addition in relation to reduction in sales consideration to the extent of Rs. 8,85,60,312/- despite itself observing that the issue at point would also need appropriate verification by the lower authorities and confirmation from Neo Structo Construction Ltd. and Speetch Equipment Pvt. Ltd? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in accepting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of Speteech Plant Equipment Pvt. Ltd. by an amount of Rs. 14,75,997/-. Therefore, as against the original gross sale consideration of Rs. 110,73,35,590/- in respect of both the transactions, the total sale consideration has been revised and shown at Rs. 101,87,75,278/- in the revised return of income wherein the assessee has reduced the sale consideration by an amount of Rs. 8,85,60,312/- which is presently in dispute before us. The reason for the reduction in the sale consideration has been stated by the assessee as the amount not recoverable from the debtors of both the companies totaling to Rs. 22,08,91,206/- (the assessee's share comes to Rs. 8,85,60,312/-) which the assessee, along with his family members, were req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for a significant period from Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd. and the parties wishes to settle the recovery of this receivable earlier than as stipulated in the SPA and NCNSIA which is subsequent stated to be 13.02.2013. In other words, in normal course, the parties would have waited for the period ending as on 13.02.2013 for recovery of the said amount, however, they have mutually agreed to prepone the settlement as on 15.05.2012 with appropriate discounting factor and net account receivable (after discounting) from Neftogaz India Private Limited has been determined at Rs. 137,474,270.41 which the assessee has sought to reduce (to the extent of his shareholding) from the sale consideration from sale of his shareholding in the company. Apparen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....coveries which the asseessee has finally indemnified to the extent of his shareholding subject to necessary verification and examination. In the result, the ground no.2 of the assessee's appeal so far as it relates to reduction in sale consideration to the extent of Rs. 8,85,60,312 is allowed in light of the aforesaid direction." 8. Learned advocate Ms.Kalpana K. Raval for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal in paragraph No.42 of the order has held that the ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed in light of the directions given in the order mis-construed by the Assessing Officer by allowing the claim of the appellant without considering direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 9. It is hereby clarified th....