VARDHMAN YARNS & THREADS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
Following a decision in a sister concern's case, the Tribunal restored the issue of whether interest reimbursement under the TUF Scheme is a capital receipt back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee raised an additional ground regarding interest reimbursement under the TUF Scheme being a capital receipt, which was not adjudicated in the earlier order. The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to decide this specific ground.
What were the issues?
Whether interest reimbursement received under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:
These cross appeals by the assessee as well as by the
Revenue have been preferred against the separate orders of
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ludhiana
[hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] relating to respective
assessment years.
All the above appeals were earlier decided vide common
order of the Tribunal dated 13.7.2017. However, thereafter
the assessee moved Miscellaneous Applications bearing
numbers MA No.98/Chd/2017 in ITA No.530/Chd/2012, MA
No.99/Chd/2017 in ITA No.569/Chd/2012, MA
No.100/Chd/2017 in ITA No.1159/Chd/2013 & MA
No.101/Chd/2017 in ITA No.2/Chd/2014 respectively
pleading therein that while adjudicating the aforesaid
appeals vide common order dated 13.7.2017, the following
additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee has
remained unadjudicated:
“That the Ld. AO has erred in not treating the interest reimbursement under TUF Scheme as capital receipt” 3. After hearing the Ld. Representatives of the parties the
aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications were decided vide
common order dated 18.6.2018, whereby the plea of the
assessee that the aforesaid additional ground taken by the
assessee remained unadjudicated, was found correct.
Therefore, consolidated order dated 13.7.2017 was recalled
on the limited point of adjudication of the above additional
ground as to whether the interest reimbursement under TUF
Scheme is capital receipt or not.
In view of the aforesaid, common order dated 18.6.2018
passed in the aforesaid MA Nos.98/Chd/2017 & Others,
these appeals were heard on limited issue as to whether the
reimbursement of interest under TUF Scheme is capital
receipt or not. At the outset, both the Ld. Representatives of
the parties have submitted that in the case of sister concern
of the assessee, namely Vardhman Textile Limited, Ludhiana
Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA Nos.1429/Chd/2010 & Others decided
vide common order dated 18.12.2018, wherein while
adjudicating the identical additional ground, taken by the
assessee, the issue has been restored to the file of the
CIT(A), observing as under:
“22. Apart from the above, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “That the authorities below have erred in treating the interest reimbursement of Rs. 24,64,44,644/- under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) as Revenue receipt instead of capital receipt.” 23. The assessee has claimed that interest reimbursement of Rs. 24,64,44,644/-received under ‘Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme’ (TUFS) should be treated as capital receipt instead of Revenue receipt as treated by the lower authorities. Admittedly, this ground has been taken as addition ground which has not been examined by the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the earlier years also this issue has been restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. 24. Considering the above submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, this additional ground is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law taking into
consideration the relevant case laws as maybe available or cited before him.” 4. Since the aforesaid additional ground taken by the assessee in these appeals also has been taken for the first time and the same has not been looked into by the lower authorities, hence, following the order passed in the case of sister concern of the assessee, this limited issue is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh in similar terms and in accordance with law. However, our findings given vide order dated 13.7.2017 on other issues will remain unchanged and the adjudication on the aforesaid issue by the CIT(A) will not have any bearing on our findings given on other issues vide order dated 13.7.2017.
In the result, all the cross appeals are disposed off in the above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- अ�नपूणा� गु�ता संजय गग� (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याय�क सद�य/Judicial Member �दनांक /Dated: 11th March, 2019 *रती* आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026