Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 2287 2005 SLD 2287 (2005) 274 ITR 413
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL Nos. 482 AND 484 OF 2003 SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
B.C. PATEL, C.J. AND BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Paragon Constructions (India) P. Ltd.

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Accrual of - Assessment year 1992-93 - There was a contract between assessee and 'NDMC' - Disputes arose about implementation of contract in time and matter was referred to arbitration - Arbitrator passed an award directing NDMC to pay certain sum to assessee - Assessee moved to High Court for making award a rule of Court - Though NDMC filed objection against said award but deposited amount in Court with out prejudice to its objections - During pendency of said proceeding, High Court permitted that amount to be withdrawn against a bank guarantee with a further condition that in case NDMC succeeded, assessee would refund that amount with interest - Assessee, accordingly withdrew that amount and kept it in a fixed deposit account with a bank and earned interest there on - Assessing Officer held interest accrued on amount so deposited as a taxable income for relevant assessment year - High Court, subsequently, affirmed that award in 995 - Whether instant case was not one where merely date of payment was deferred, rather entire right to receive same was in question and jeopardy - Held, yes - Whether right accrued to assessee when said award was affirmed by High Court - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, determinative date would be that date on which decision was rendered by High Court and it was for that relevant year that income-tax would have to be assessed as it could be said that amount accrued on that date only - Held, yes - Whether therefore, Tribunal was not right in holding that interest accrued to assessee during relevant previous year - Held, yes FACTS There was a contract between the assessee and the 'NDMC'. There were disputes about implementation of the contract in time and the default committed by NDMC. The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator, by his award, held that NDMC should pay to the assessee a sum with simple interest. The assessee approached the High Court for making it a rule of a Court. Against the award, objections were filed by NDMC. In those proceedings, NDMC deposited the amount in the Court without prejudice to its objections to the award. During pendency of that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492