2020 (9) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....20082009. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions as the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:- "2(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to treat the amount of sale consideration as advance money and give appropriate effect to the same in A.Y.201213 as per law, without appreciating the fact that the sale of land transaction is completed and the amount payable for the same is shown as current liability?" (B) Whether Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the alternate plea of assesse treating the impugned receipt as 'Advance Receipt' was never made before the Assessing Officer and this....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r and this plea was made for the first time before CIT (A)? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the claim of deduction under Section 80IAB rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not contested by the Assessee subsequently and the assessee by advancing such alternate plea tried to neutralize the revenue effect consequent to reject of its claim of deduction under Section 80IAB?" 3. The Questions Nos.2(B) and 2(C) would take care of the proposed Question No.2(A). 4. So far as the proposed Question No.2(D) is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact as contained in Paragraph No.13.6. The paragraph No.13.6 reads as under:- " 13.6 We have carefully....