{"id":9251,"date":"2014-12-03T12:40:01","date_gmt":"2014-12-03T07:10:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?page_id=9251"},"modified":"2014-12-03T12:40:01","modified_gmt":"2014-12-03T07:10:01","slug":"digest-of-important-case-laws-july-2014","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-laws-july-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"Digest Of Important Case Laws &#8211; July 2014"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"clock\">\n<table border=\"0\">\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\"><strong>Digest of important case law &#8211; July 2014 (Compiled by KSA Legal &#038; AIFTP)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"264\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\">\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"><!--\ngoogle_ad_client = \"ca-pub-6440093791992877\";\n\/* DLCenter_336x280 *\/\ngoogle_ad_slot = \"7705834990\";\ngoogle_ad_width = 336;\ngoogle_ad_height = 280;\n\/\/-->\n<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"\nsrc=\"http:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/show_ads.js\">\n<\/script><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\" valign=\"top\">\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"><!--\ngoogle_ad_client = \"ca-pub-6440093791992877\";\n\/* DLCenter_336x280 *\/\ngoogle_ad_slot = \"7705834990\";\ngoogle_ad_width = 336;\ngoogle_ad_height = 280;\n\/\/-->\n<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"\nsrc=\"http:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/show_ads.js\">\n<\/script><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\"><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1358\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Monthly<\/strong> July 2014 Digest in pdf format <\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1359\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2014 to July 2014) in pdf format<\/a><\/a> <\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1357\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2013 to December 2013) in pdf format<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1087\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2012 to December 2012) in pdf format<\/a> <\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-laws-june-2014\/\">Looking for the Previous Month&#8217;s digest? Click here.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\"><!--\ngoogle_ad_client = \"ca-pub-6440093791992877\";\n\/* DLCenter_728x90 *\/\ngoogle_ad_slot = \"3275635396\";\ngoogle_ad_width = 728;\ngoogle_ad_height = 90;\n\/\/-->\n<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"\nsrc=\"http:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/show_ads.js\">\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div class=\"journal\">\n<p><strong>Journals Referred <\/strong>: BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib),  Income Tax Review, SOT, Taxman, Taxation, TLR, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ,  www.itatonline.org\n <\/div>\n<div>\n<div style='float:left; margin-top:5px ; margin-left:5px ; margin-right:10px ; margin-bottom:5px ;'>\n<\/div>\n<p><strong>S.2(1A):<\/strong><strong>Agricultural income&ndash;Capital gains-<strong>Gains from  sale of agricultural land is exempt even though purchaser intends to use the  land for commercial purposes. [S.2(14),45]<\/strong><\/strong><br \/>\n  The only reason the A.O. treated the land as  non-agricultural land was that &lsquo;agreement of sale&rsquo; read with &lsquo;Irrevocable GPA&rsquo;  does not indicate that land retained the character of agriculture at the time  of transfer. This was also the ground raised by Revenue in the appeal that M\/s.  Ramky Estates and Farms P. Ltd., may put the property to commercial use,  therefore, the land was meant for commercial exploitation and did not have the  character of agricultural land at the time of his transfer. There is no dispute  that assessee has purchased agricultural land and put to agricultural use as  such earlier. The facts indicate that assessee has sold only agricultural land  which was also used and put to agricultural use earlier and the purpose for  which the purchaser utilized the land cannot be considered as an evidence of  change of nature of land as was considered by Assessing Officer.The chargeability  to tax under s. 45 arises only if on the date of sale, the land in question  retained its character as a capital asset, which means, an asset, which does  not answer the definition of a capital asset and which is an agricultural land  would automatically be outside the scope of s. 45. It is no doubt true that the  purpose for which the purchaser had purchased was totally different from what  the transferor had intended to use the land in question but with the admitted  finding that the lands in question were under agricultural operation on the  date of sale for the purpose of considering the meaning of capital assets, it  matters very little how the subsequent purchaser intended the land in question  to be put to use. The Hon&rsquo;ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan  Industrial Resources Ltd., vs. ACIT has  taken a similar view. The CIT(A) in his order has followed the decision of  Hon&rsquo;ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Debbi Almao and Joaqyam Almao  reported in 339 ITR 59 (Bom.) (HC) which also considered similar facts and  accepted the contention that no capital gains arises on the sale of  agricultural land even though purchaser purchased the property with an  intention of selling it for non-agricultural purposes. (ITA&nbsp; No. 729\/Hyd\/2013, 24.10.2014.) (AY.2008-09)<br \/>\n  <strong>DCIT v.  M. Kalyan Chakravarthy(Hyd.)(Trib.)<\/strong><strong>;www.itatonline.org<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.2(22)(e):Deemed  dividend-Loan to a share &nbsp;holder-Expenditure on repair and  renovation&nbsp; by the company-No deemed  dividend in shareholder&rsquo;s hands.<\/strong><br \/>\n  The assessee had let out the premises to the  company. The company incurred expenses towards construction and improvement of  the factory premises which it continued to use. The AO&nbsp; held that the amount was paid on behalf of  the assessee and alternatively the amount spent was treated as perquisite.On  appeal Tribunal held that the payment was not&nbsp;  a deemed dividend and the amount was also not a perquisite. On appeal by  revenue , dismissing the appeal held that no money had been paid to the assessee  by way of advance or loan nor was any payment made for his individual benefit.  It was a case where the asset of the assessee may have enhanced in value by  virtue of repairs and renovation but this could not be brought within the  definition of the advance or loan to the assesse, nor could it be treated&nbsp; as payment by the company on behalf of the  assessee share holder or for the individual benefit of such shareholder. Appeal  of revenue was dismissed.<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT  v. Vir Vikram Vaid (2014) 367 ITR 365 (Bom.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.2(24):Income-Capital or revenue-Carbon credit-Income on sale of  Certified Emission Reduction\/carbon credit&nbsp;  -Chargeable to tax.[S.4, 28(i)]<\/strong><br \/>\n  The value of any benefit or  perquisite arising from business or profession forms part of the profit and  gains of the business. Therefore, the income on sale of the Certified Emission  Reduption \/ carbon credit which is admittedly a benefit arising out of the  business of the assessee, would fall within the definition of  &quot;income&quot; u\/s. 2(24)(vd) of the Act. Therefore, income on sale of  Certified emission reduction\/carbon credit part of the chargeable as income.  (AY. 2008-09) <br \/>\n  <strong>Apollo Tyres Ltd. v.<\/strong><strong>ACIT<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><strong>(2014) 149 ITD  756 \/31 ITR 477 \/47 taxmann.com 416 (Cochin)(Trib.)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.2(31):Person-Association  of persons-Individual-Land inherited by brothers by operation of law &#8211; Assessee  to be assessed as individuals and not association of persons.[S. 28, 45(5)(b),  Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.28]<\/strong><br \/>\n  The assessee were brothers .Their father died  leaving land to the assessee and two others who relinquished their rights in  the assesee&rsquo;s favour. Bequeathed land was acquired by the State Government and  compensation was paid to the assessee. AO brought to tax the compensation in  the status of Association of persons and taxed the interest in the year of  receipt. On appeal High Court held that assessee were to be assessed as  individuals and not an association of persons and that the interest was to be  spread over from the year of dispossession of land, that is, the assessment  year 1987-88, till the year of actual payment, which was the assessment year  1999-2000. On appeal by the revenue the Court held that land inherited by the  brothers by operation of law hence assessable as individuals and not  association of persons. Interest is taxable in the year of receipt and not  spread over.<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT  v. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 498\/271 CTR 31\/109 DTR 65 (SC)<\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Editorial: <\/strong>Judgment of  Gujarat High Court in ITA no 8103 of 2009 dt 16-11-2006 was partly affirmed and  partly reversed. <strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 4: Charge of income-tax&ndash;Lease rentals&ndash;Lease or  finance-Agreement of lease-Entire lease rent assessable-Lessor was entitle to  depreciation. [S.32] <\/strong><br \/>\n  The assessee was  engaged in the business of bill discounting, hire purchase and leasing, mutual  funds and insurance agency. In the returns, it offered the interest portion in  the leasing transaction alone as its income. It stated that according to the  amended Accounting Standards 19 dated April 1, 2001, only the income portion of  the lease rental shall be offered as income and the lessor cannot claim  depreciation. Accordingly, the assessee treated the lease transaction as a  financial lease transaction. The Assessing Officer held that the entire lease  rent was taxable as income of the lessor and the lessor was entitled to  depreciation on the equipment. The Tribunal found on reading a sample lease  agreement that in respect of lease of a car, the term of the lease was stated  to be three years, with monthly rentals and total rentals payable. During the  currency of the lease, the lessee shall insure the subject of lease and protect  if from any risk. Clause 10 of the agreement stated that without the prior  written consent of the lessor, the lessee shall not make any alterations,  additions, or improvements to the equipment and all additions, replacements,  attachments and improvements of whatever kind or nature made to the equipment  shall be deemed to be parts of the property of the lessor and shall be subject  to all the terms and conditions of the agreement. Clause 13 spoke about the  surrender of the lease equipment upon the expiration or earlier termination of  the lease agreement. It also gave the option for renewal on year to year basis  on mutually agreed terms and conditions. Clause 15 dealt with payment by the  lessor and clause 20 stipulated that on expiration of the lease term, if the  lessee failed to deliver the equipment to the lessor in accordance with any  direction given by the lessor, the lessee would be deemed to be the monthly  tenant of the equipment and upon the same terms expressed in the agreement and  the tenancy should be terminated by the lessor immediately upon default  committed by the lessee by serving seven days&#8217; notice. Upon termination of the  lease period the lessee had to immediately return the property to the lessor in  as good condition as received less normal wear, tear and depreciation. The  Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal to the High  Court: <br \/>\n  Held, dismissing the  appeals that on examination of the terms of the agreement showed that it was a  simple lease agreement. If in effect the agreement was a finance agreement, the  question of returning the leased item to the assessee would not arise at all.  Further, the question of again affixing the name of the assessee on the  property also would not arise. The monthly payment of the rent and the number  of months of the lease rent payment was also clearly stated in the agreement.  The entire lease rent was assessable (A. Y. 2002-2003 &#8211; 2008-2009) <br \/>\n  <strong>Simpson and General Finance Co. Ltd v. Dy.  CIT (2014) 365 ITR 328 (Mad.)(HC)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p><strong>S.  4:<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><strong>Charge of income-tax <\/strong><strong>&#8211;<\/strong><strong>Capital or  revenue-Business income&ndash;Sale of carbon credits-No cost of acquisition-Capital  receipt.[S.28(i)]<\/strong><br \/>\n  Carbon credits not being an  offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concern, amount received  on their transfer had no element of profit or gain. Since carbon credit was not  even linked with power generation, which was the business of the assessee,  Tribunal was justified in its decision. There was no cost of acquisition or  cost of production to get entitlement for carbon credit. Income&nbsp; from sale of carbon credits was to be  considered as capital receipts and not liable to tax under any head under the  Income&ndash;tax Act. (AY. 2007-08)<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT  .v. My Home Power Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 82 (AP.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.4<\/strong><strong>:Charge of  income-tax -Public financial institutions-<strong>Interest on NPAs is not  taxable-As there is a conflict on the point between two decisions, the view in  favour of the assessee has to be followed. [S.43D]<\/strong><\/strong><br \/>\n  Based on the prudential norms, the assessee herein did  not admit the interest relatable to NPA advances in its total income. The Delhi  High Court in&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-vasisth-chay-vyapar-delhi-high-court-interest-on-npa-not-assessable-on-accrual-basis\/\">Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd<\/a>&nbsp;330 ITR 440 (Del) has held that the  interest on NPA assets cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee on the  basis that &ldquo;<em>What  to talk of interest, even the principle amount itself had become doubtful to  recover. In this scenario it was legitimate move to infer that interest income  thereupon has not &ldquo;accrued&rdquo;<\/em>&ldquo;. However, the Madras High Court in the  case of&nbsp;<strong>CIT vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd.<\/strong><strong>,<\/strong> (2013) 31 taxmann.com 305 (Madras)  has differed with the judgement of the Hon&rsquo;ble Delhi High Court in the case of&nbsp;<strong>M\/s  Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd<\/strong>. (supra) on a similar issue, i.e.  relating to interest income on NPAs. The Madras High Court followed the  decision of the Supreme Court in the case of&nbsp;<strong>Southern Technologies Ltd<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong> (supra) in holding that interest on  NPAs was assessable to tax on accrual basis.<br \/>\n  We have carefully considered the submissions put-forth  by the learned Departmental Representative based on the judgement of the Madras  High Court in the case of&nbsp;<strong>Sakthi Finance Ltd<\/strong>. (supra). The  controversy before the Hon&rsquo;ble Madras High Court related to non-recognition of  interest income on NPAs by the assessee following the RBI guidelines. The  Madras High Court took the view that the judgement of the Hon&rsquo;ble Supreme Court  in the case of&nbsp;<strong>Southern Technologies Ltd<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong> also applied to the Income  Recognition Norms provided by RBI and therefore it held the interest income on  NPAs is liable to be taxed on accrual basis and not in terms of RBI&rsquo;s  guidelines. But the Delhi High Court in&nbsp;<strong>M\/s Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd<\/strong>. has  taken a view that&nbsp;<strong>Southern Technologies Ltd<\/strong>. (supra)  case did not apply to the Income Recognition Norms prescribed by RBI.  Ostensibly, there is divergence of opinion between the Hon&rsquo;ble Delhi High Court  and the Madras High Court as noted by the Madras High Court in its order. As  there is no judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court. We are faced with two  contrary judgments of the non-jurisdictional High Court. In such a situation,  we are inclined to prefer a view which is favourable of the assessee following  the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of&nbsp;<strong>CIT  vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.<\/strong>&nbsp;(1973)  88 ITR 192 (SC). (<strong>ACIT vs. The Omerga  Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong> order in ITA No.350\/PN\/2013 dated 31.10.2013 followed)<br \/>\n  <strong>ACIT<\/strong><strong> .v. Solapur Siddheshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Pune)(Trib.)<\/strong><strong>;www.itatonline.org<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.4:<\/strong><strong>Charge of income-tax &ndash;Grant-Capital or revenue-<strong>Grant given  to safeguard the interests of depositors, though used for meeting <\/strong><\/strong><strong>SLR<\/strong><strong> requirements of RBI relatable to its banking activity, is still capital in  nature. [Banking Regulation Act, S.35A]<\/strong><br \/>\n  The objective of the Government of Maharashtra to give  grant to the assessee was to protect the interests of farmers and depositors  from the Nanded district and for the said purpose the Government deemed it fit  to provide financial assistance to the assessee-bank to enable it to regularize  its functioning. Pertinently, the functioning of the bank was restrained by the  RBI in the face of the restrictions imposed u\/s 35A of the Banking Regulation  Act, 1949. The objective and purpose of the Government was sought to be  achieved by providing Rs.110 crores as a grant. The case made out by the  Revenue is that the financial assistance given to the assessee-bank is for  smooth running of its business and therefore it is to be regarded as a trading  receipt. No doubt, the aforesaid sum has been used by the assessee for the purpose  of maintain the Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) as per the requirements of RBI,  which enabled the assessee-bank to regularize its banking operations. So,  however, the form or mechanism of subsidy is not important, as held by the  Hon&rsquo;ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (supra).  The nature of subsidy has to be determined by the object for which the subsidy  is given. The underlying object of the Government was to safeguard the interest  of farmers and small depositors, and this object was sought to be achieved by  the mechanism of providing financial grant to the assessee-bank and  regularizing its normal banking activity. In this manner, it has to be deduced  that the subsidy\/grant in question has not been received by the assessee-bank in  the course of a trade but it is of capital nature. (ITA No. 33\/PN\/2014,dt.  14.10.2014 ) (AY.2010-2011)<br \/>\n  <strong>The  Nanded District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (Pune)(Trib.)<\/strong><strong>;www.itatonline.org<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.4:  Charge of income-tax-Lease rent- Principal component received cannot be treated  as income.<\/strong><br \/>\n  The Tribunal held that the capital  component included in the lease rent being return of capital investment cannot  be treated as income. (AY. 1996-97)<br \/>\n  <strong>Hathway  Industries (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2014) 163 TTJ 141 (Mum.)(Trib.)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.4:Charge of income-tax- Interest on  NPAs, even if credited to the Profit &amp; loss account, is not chargeable to  tax.[S.145,<\/strong><strong>Maharashtra  Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 <\/strong><strong>]<\/strong><br \/>\n  While constructing its Profit &amp; Loss Account to  arrive at its net Profit or Loss, a Co-operative Society is required to show  interest accrued\/accruing on amounts of Overdue Loans separately. This is  precisely what has been done by the assessee in the present case. The aforesaid  requirement of the manner of construction of Profit &amp; Loss Account,  prescribed under the Rules of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960,  has prompted the assessee to draw up its Profit &amp; Loss Account in the  manner we have noted above qua the interest on NPAs. Therefore, it cannot be  accepted that the manner or presentation of account which ostensibly is in  compliance with the statutory provisions governing the assessee, can be a  factor to evaluate assess ability or otherwise of an income. In our considered  opinion, it would inappropriate to be merely guided by a presentation in the  annual financial statements to infer assessee&rsquo;s perception that an income had  accrued, without considering the entries made in the financial statements in  toto. In the present case, it is quite clear that assessee has drawn up its  annual financial statement in compliance with the requirements of the statutes  under which it functions and\/or is incorporated. Therefore, the issue with  regard to non-recognition of income on NPAs is required to be adjudicated having  regard to the relevant legal position and not on the basis of the presentation  in the annual financial statements. At this stage, we may also refer to the  judgement of the Hon&rsquo;ble Supreme Court in the case of&nbsp;<strong>CIT  vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas &amp; Co<\/strong><strong>.,<\/strong> (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) for the proposition that a mere book  keeping entry cannot be assessed as income unless it can be shown that income  has actually resulted. In the present case, the crediting of gross interest in  the Profit &amp; Loss Account, which includes interest on NPAs cannot be taken  as a proof that such income has accrued to the assessee unless the statutory  guidelines applicable on the said subject are ignored. Obviously, when the  banking institutions following mercantile system accounting are permitted to treat  the income on NPAs as assessable on receipt basis, such a position cannot be  ignored in the case of present assessee merely because of a presentation in the  annual financial statements. Even otherwise, we notice that the RBI guidelines  permit that interest income on NPAs be parked in a suspense account and it is  not necessary that it has to be brought to the Profit &amp; Loss Account by the  assessee. However, in the present case, as seen earlier, assessee has credited  the gross amount of interest on credit side of the Profit &amp; Loss Account  and simultaneously shown on the debit side of the Profit &amp; Loss Account,  the amount of interest on NPAs. In other words, instead of netting of the  interest the two amounts have been shown separately one on the credit side and  other on the debit side. The net effect of the said presentation is the same.  Therefore, in our view, the lower authorities have misguided themselves in  rejecting the claim of the assessee for non-recognition of interest income on  NPAs. (ITA No. 495\/PN\/2012, Dt. 29.09.2014.)(AY.2008-09)<br \/>\n  <strong>The  Solapur District Central Co-op, Bank Ltd. v. <\/strong><strong>ACIT<\/strong><strong> (Pune)(Trib.)<\/strong><strong>;www.itatonline.org<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.5:  Scope of total income-Accrual-Advance business receipts-No income could be said  to have accrued to assessee on receipt of advance.[S.263]<\/strong><br \/>\n  Assessee which is engaged in the business of hotels,  resorts, and clubs offered holiday schemes for its card members to utilize  &lsquo;rooms nights&rsquo;&nbsp; by payment of some  advance . In case of non utilisation of said facility, assesse would refund  back said some to card members along with surrender value. Assessee was  required to refund advances more than 99 percent in cash. Assessee has the said  advances as liability in the balance sheet. AO accepted the method of  accounting followed by assessee. CIT revised the order and directed the AO to  pass fresh order assessing the advance as income. Tribunal allowed the appeal  of assessee. On appeal by revenue the dismissing the appeal the Court held that  since the assessee was required to refund advance is more than 99 percent in  cash, assessee incurred liability and no income could be said to have accrued  to assessee on receipt of advance.(AY.2005-06)<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT  .v. Pancard Clubs Ltd. (2014) 206 Taxman 141 (Bom.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 5 : Scope of total income &ndash; Accrual-Real income-Development agreement &#8211;  Consideration was not determinable with reasonable certainty, postponing  recognition of income&nbsp; was held to be  justified.[S.145]<\/strong><br \/>\n  AO treated development agreement as a transaction  giving rise to accrued income of sale of future property. Tribunal held that  neither possession of property had been given to ultimate buyer, nor assessee  had received any substantial consideration. Agreement entered into by assessee  herein was only for sale of piece of property and sale would take place only  after completion of construction and after assessee&#8217;s share of property was  identified. when consideration was not determinable with reasonable certainty,  assessee was justified in postponing recognition of income and it was  appropriate to recognize income only when it was reasonably certain that  ultimate realization was possible. (AY. 2008-09)<br \/>\n  <strong>Dy.CIT .v. S.P. Real  Estate Developers (P.) Ltd. (2014) 149 ITD 617 \/ 47 taxmann.com 281 (Hyd.)(Trib.)<\/strong><\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"90%\" valign=\"top\">The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. Neither the author nor itatonline.org and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without express written permission of itatonline.org. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Digest of important case law &#8211; July 2014 (Compiled by KSA Legal &#038; AIFTP) Download Monthly July 2014 Digest in pdf format Download Consolidated Digest (Jan 2014 to July 2014) in pdf format Download Consolidated Digest (Jan 2013 to December &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-laws-july-2014\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Digest Of Important Case Laws &#8211; July 2014<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-9251","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9251\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}