Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT

333 ITR 335Reported decision2011#345 most cited
249

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT · 333 ITR 335 · subsidy classification · capital vs revenue subsidy · industrial policy objectives · terms and conditions of scheme · section 2(24)(xviii) · section 80IB(4) · section 115JB · section 43(1) · initial assessment year · book profits

Also reported as

198 Taxmann 1229 Taxmann.com 255

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 115JBSection 14ASection 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 11bsection 80ib(4)section 2(24)(xviii)initial assessment yearminimum alternate taxsection 115jasection 80hhcsection 42section 32(1)(iia)section 43(1)section 80hhbook profits

Judgments citing Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT

The Commissioner of the Income vs. M/S Vardhman Industries Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/725/2004HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…also relies upon subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shree Balaji Alloys 2016 (287) CTR 459 (SC) which affirmed the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shri Balaji Alloys vs. Commissioner, Income Tax (2011) 333 ITR 335. It was stated that the Ponni Sugars (supra) principle was applied and the Court held that the excise duty refund received by the eligible unit, was not liable to tax as it was a capital receipt despite absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/434/2005HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…also relies upon subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shree Balaji Alloys 2016 (287) CTR 459 (SC) which affirmed the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shri Balaji Alloys vs. Commissioner, Income Tax (2011) 333 ITR 335. It was stated that the Ponni Sugars (supra) principle was applied and the Court held that the excise duty refund received by the eligible unit, was not liable to tax as it was a capital receipt despite absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/316/2003HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…also relies upon subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shree Balaji Alloys 2016 (287) CTR 459 (SC) which affirmed the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shri Balaji Alloys vs. Commissioner, Income Tax (2011) 333 ITR 335. It was stated that the Ponni Sugars (supra) principle was applied and the Court held that the excise duty refund received by the eligible unit, was not liable to tax as it was a capital receipt despite absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/315/2003HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…also relies upon subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shree Balaji Alloys 2016 (287) CTR 459 (SC) which affirmed the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shri Balaji Alloys vs. Commissioner, Income Tax (2011) 333 ITR 335. It was stated that the Ponni Sugars (supra) principle was applied and the Court held that the excise duty refund received by the eligible unit, was not liable to tax as it was a capital receipt despite absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…\IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. ACIT – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAACL6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAACL6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) ACIT – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 09…

A.C.I.T.. Cir.-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sunvijay Rolling and Enginering Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 224/NAG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri A.R. NinaweFor Respondent: Shri K.P. Dewani

…1 ITA No. 224/Nag/2015. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. No. 224/Nag/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s Sanvijay Rolling and Circld-2, Nagpur. Vs. Engineering Ltd., Nagpur. PAN AACCS0217J. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Respondent by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Date of Hearing : 30-03-2017. Date of Pronouncement : 30th March, 2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(App…

Sicpa India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Sicpa India Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -8, Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose while appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 885/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 885/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sicpa India Private Limited -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-8, (Formerly Known As Kolkata Sicpa India Ltd. ), Kolkata [Pan : Aadcs 6121 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 933/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, Sicpa India Private Limited Kolkata (Formerly Known As Sicpa India Ltd. ), Kolkata [Pan : Aadcs 6121 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Assessee : Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Ar For The Department : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Jaiswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 14ASection 43B

…Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue has raised Gr.No.2 before the Tribunal. 9 A.Yr.2007-08 17. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/S.Shree Balaji Alloys 333 ITR 335 (J & K) ITA No.2 of 2010 Judgment dated 31.01.2010, rendered in the context of identical scheme under which the excise duty exemption subsidy was received by the Assessee in the present case. In the case of Balaji Alloys (supra), the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court has set out of the objects of the scheme under which the excise duty exemption…

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 883/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.D.Verma, Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 139(5)

…hese subsidies were given with the object of acceleration of industrial development in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and generation of employment in the said State. He also held that the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/S.Shree Balaji Alloys 333 ITR 335 (J & K) ITA No.2 of 2010 Judgement dated 31.01.2010, has in respect of the very same scheme under which the subsidies in question were received by the Assessee has held that the subsidies were capital receipt not chargeable to tax. 6. The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A) in this regard: “I have carefully considered the detai…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1018/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.D.Verma, Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 139(5)

…hese subsidies were given with the object of acceleration of industrial development in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and generation of employment in the said State. He also held that the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/S.Shree Balaji Alloys 333 ITR 335 (J & K) ITA No.2 of 2010 Judgement dated 31.01.2010, has in respect of the very same scheme under which the subsidies in question were received by the Assessee has held that the subsidies were capital receipt not chargeable to tax. 6. The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A) in this regard: “I have carefully considered the detai…

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 390/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…Industrial Promotion Assistance for setting up a new unit is capital in nature, also find support from the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314 (Guj); CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 632 (Bom); Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 335 (J&K) and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Bros., 215 Taxman 145 (Bom)(Mag.). In view of the facts in the case of appellant company as well as respectfully following the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Jurisdictional ITAT, as discussed above, it is to be held that…

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 389/KOL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…Industrial Promotion Assistance for setting up a new unit is capital in nature, also find support from the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314 (Guj); CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 632 (Bom); Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 335 (J&K) and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Bros., 215 Taxman 145 (Bom)(Mag.). In view of the facts in the case of appellant company as well as respectfully following the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Jurisdictional ITAT, as discussed above, it is to be held that…

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…Industrial Promotion Assistance for setting up a new unit is capital in nature, also find support from the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314 (Guj); CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 632 (Bom); Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 335 (J&K) and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Bros., 215 Taxman 145 (Bom)(Mag.). In view of the facts in the case of appellant company as well as respectfully following the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Jurisdictional ITAT, as discussed above, it is to be held that…

Svg Fashion Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1217/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ities, modernization and improving the marketing capabilities to tide over the crises for promotion of industry in the state is to be treated as capital in nature. That similarly, the issue is covered in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. –vs.- CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) wherein it has been held that excise duty refund and interest subsidy received for the purpose of eradication of unemployment in the state by acceleration of industrial development and removing backwardness of the area that lagged behind in industrial development is to be treated as capital receipt. 8. Ld. A.R. also submitted that similar…

DCIT (Ltu) -1, Mumbai vs. Lupin Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7513/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sanjay Garg (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on'ble Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Megalaya Steels Ltd. (356 ITR 235). 10. The Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that identical issue was considered by Hon'ble J&K High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (2011) 333 ITR 335 and Hon'ble High Court has held that excise refund received by that assessee, on identical circumstances, is capital in nature. He further submitted that the decision rendered by Hon'ble J&K High Court has since been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in very same case reported in (2016) 138 DTR 36. 11. We have heard learned Departmental Representat…

Regen Powertech Private Lmited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 786/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

…In the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (129 Taxmann 231) the Jurisdictional High Court held that the ‘’subsidy amount received from the State Government is capital receipt not liable to tax’’. In the case of Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (2011) 198 Taxmann 122 (J& K) it was held that ‘’Excise refund and interest subsidy received by the assessees in pursuance of the incentives announced and sanctioned vide Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry’s Office Memorandum dated 14th June, 2002 and Central Excise Notification NOs.56 and 57 dated 14th November, 2002 and other notifications i…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Regen Powertech (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

…In the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (129 Taxmann 231) the Jurisdictional High Court held that the ‘’subsidy amount received from the State Government is capital receipt not liable to tax’’. In the case of Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (2011) 198 Taxmann 122 (J& K) it was held that ‘’Excise refund and interest subsidy received by the assessees in pursuance of the incentives announced and sanctioned vide Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry’s Office Memorandum dated 14th June, 2002 and Central Excise Notification NOs.56 and 57 dated 14th November, 2002 and other notifications i…

Price Waterhouse Coppers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 2, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2033/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…up of the project should only be treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax :- CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) Shree Balaji Alloys vs CIT reported in (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) – This was later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Shree Balaji Alloys in Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19.4.2016. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, he argued that in any case, the interest subsidy may kindly be directed to be credited to the cost of the assets and consequential reduced depreciation may kin…

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Price Water House Coopers Pvt., Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1523/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…up of the project should only be treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax :- CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) Shree Balaji Alloys vs CIT reported in (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) – This was later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Shree Balaji Alloys in Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19.4.2016. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, he argued that in any case, the interest subsidy may kindly be directed to be credited to the cost of the assets and consequential reduced depreciation may kin…

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1521/KOL/2013[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…up of the project should only be treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax :- CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) Shree Balaji Alloys vs CIT reported in (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) – This was later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Shree Balaji Alloys in Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19.4.2016. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, he argued that in any case, the interest subsidy may kindly be directed to be credited to the cost of the assets and consequential reduced depreciation may kin…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…l unit will charge VAT and retain the same as an Incentive. 4.1 Following judgments of various High Courts saying that Incentives declared by the Government for development are of capital nature were referred before the AO : - . 1. Shree Balajl Alloys Vs. CIT 333 ITR 335 - High Court of Jammu Kashmir held that Refund of Excise under subsidy scheme Is a capital nature and not taxable, 2. Vinod Kumar Jain vs. ITO, Jammu, ITAT, Amritsar Bench (Special Bench) (IT Appeal Nos. 65& 68 (Asr.) of 2010) 140 ITD 1, held that excise duty refund is to be treated as capital receipt. 3. CIT vs. Rasoli ltd. [2011J 245 CTR. 667 (…