CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

Mahesh Chachan, Guwahati vs. Pr. Conmmissioner of Income Tax-2, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Mahesh Chachan Pr. Cit, Guwahati - 2 Kayal Market, Fancy Bazar, Vs. Guwahati-781001. Pan: Afxpc 3051 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 30.08.2019 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-4(2), Guwahati, Dated 05.04.2017. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assesee Is On Challenging The Treatment Of Vat Remission As Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Revision U/S 263 Of The Act.

…e for deduction under section 80-IB/80-IC of the Income- tax Act. It was pointed out that the Revenue in most of the cases before the hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated September 16, 2010, passed in the case of CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 91/201 Taxman 135 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 451 (Mag.) held that the transport subsidy did not have any direct nexus with the profits and gains derived by the assessee from its industrial activity but so far the central excise duly refund is concerned, it was held that it had a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity of the assessee. .... 10. Respec…

M/S Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd, Kolkata & Anr vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-3, Kolkata & Ors

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.4.2012 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 282/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Appeal Was Admitted On 30.11.2012 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- I) “Whether The Transport Subsidy Received By The Undertaking Engaged In Manufacturing Process Is Covered By The Meaning Of The Expression “Business Income” Within The Meaning Of Section 80 Ic Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Substantial Question Of Law Which Has Been Admitted For Consideration Arise In The Assessee’S Own Case For The Assessment Year 2011-12 In I.T.A. No. 140 Of 2019 & By Judgment Dated 26.09.2022, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Was Dismissed. Thus The Substantial Question Of Law Which Has Been Admitted For Consideration In This Appeal Stood Answered In Favour Of The Assessee In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No. 140 Of 2019. The Operation Portion Of The Judgment Reads As Follows :-

…as profit from business and the assessee could have been granted the benefit of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. We find that identical issue was decided by the High Court of Gauhati in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., 332 ITR 91 (Gauhati). The operative portion of the decision reads as follows :- “18. Insofar as the second question is concerned, the Central excise duty refund claimed by the assessee is on the basis of an exemption notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of revenue) being Notification No. 32 of 1999 and Notification No. 33 of 1999 both d…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata vs. M/S.Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

…g the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 80-IC of the said Act on Government subsidy and Excise Duty refund of Rs.8,64,029/- by relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Meghalaya Steel Limited reported in 332 ITR 91 despite the fact that the Excise Duty refund does not form part of net profit of 2 eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80-IC in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India –vs- CIT reported in 183 Taxman 349? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law is t…