Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
"8. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld.
Representatives of the parties and have also gone through the record.
We find force in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- was deposited in the
Escrow Account. Both the transferor and transferee had common
rights over the said amount as the said amount was deposited in the
Escrow Account as a security in respect of future liabilities of the
company/transferor. There was no certainty about the quantum of
amount likely to be received by transferor or transferee out of the said
amount deposited in Escrow Account. Even there was no certainty of
the time of release of the said amount or the part of the amount to
either of the parties as a dispute between the parties had occurred and
litigation was going on. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that
the assessee had got a vested right to receive the amount in question. It
was only at the end of the litigation that the rights and liabilities of the
transferor and transferee were ascertained and thereupon the share of
the assessee was passed on to the assessee for which the assessee
offered capital gains in the immediate A. Y. 2010-11. The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemel Raju Shete' (supra)
while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'E.D.
Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) has observed that when the
taxpayer did not have the vested right to receive a particular amount,
it cannot be said that the said amount has accrued to the taxpayer.
R. Dalmia vs C.I.T., Delhi, New Delhi on 21 September, 1977
The
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'R. Dalmia Vs. CIT (supra)
has held that the capital gains would accrue only to an assessee when
they are ascertained.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, ... vs Sh. Mahipinder Singh Sandhu on 12 March, 2019
6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through Slump
Sale Agreement, whose copy is available at page No. 1 to174
of the Paper Book. He has pointed out that under clause
4.8, the conditions for Escrow Account are being provided in
this Agreement and if these conditions are perused, then it
would reveal that the amount to the extent of
Rs.2,60,25,000/- was not accrued or crystallized in favour of
vendor. It was contingent one and subject to fulfillment of
conditions mentioned in para 4.8.1 to 4.8.3. Thus, the
Revenue failed to appreciate the concept of maintaining
Escrow Account and also lost sight that tax rate is similar
in both the assessment years upon the assessee. The
assessee has already offered this amount for taxation in
assessment year 2013-14 which has been accepted by the
Revenue. For buttressing his contentions, he relied upon
the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh Vs
Shri Mahipinder Singh Sandhu reported in 2019 (3) TMI
ITA No.997/CHD/2024
& SA/24/CHD/2024
A.Y.2012-13
5
1358. He has placed on record copy of this judgement.
According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Hon'ble Court
has explained the concept of Escrow Account and as to how
the amount kept in Escrow Account is to be treated as
contingent one.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Smt. Nilavati Neminath Shete,, ... on 26 April, 2021
"8. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld.
Representatives of the parties and have also gone through the record.
We find force in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- was deposited in the
Escrow Account. Both the transferor and transferee had common
rights over the said amount as the said amount was deposited in the
Escrow Account as a security in respect of future liabilities of the
company/transferor. There was no certainty about the quantum of
amount likely to be received by transferor or transferee out of the said
amount deposited in Escrow Account. Even there was no certainty of
the time of release of the said amount or the part of the amount to
either of the parties as a dispute between the parties had occurred and
litigation was going on. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that
the assessee had got a vested right to receive the amount in question. It
was only at the end of the litigation that the rights and liabilities of the
transferor and transferee were ascertained and thereupon the share of
the assessee was passed on to the assessee for which the assessee
offered capital gains in the immediate A. Y. 2010-11. The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemel Raju Shete' (supra)
while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'E.D.
Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) has observed that when the
taxpayer did not have the vested right to receive a particular amount,
it cannot be said that the said amount has accrued to the taxpayer.
1