TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Assessee's Victory on Sales Tax Subsidy & Depreciation Disallowance</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s. Bhushan Steel Ltd. (Formerly Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd.</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s. Bhushan Steel Ltd. (Formerly Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. - TMI Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of sales tax subsidy claimed as capital receipts and the disallowance of depreciation on assets not registered in the name of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08.Issue 1 - Sales Tax Subsidy:The appellant contended that the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in deleting the addition of sales tax subsidy claimed as capital receipts by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the assessee's claim for A.Y. 2006-07, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the subsidy was treated as capital subsidy by the assessee and reduced from the taxable income. The C.I.T.(A) allowed the claim based on earlier orders of the ITAT and held in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the C.I.T.(A)'s decision, stating that the issue was already concluded against the department by previous Tribunal orders and Special Bench decisions. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the C.I.T.(A)'s order.Issue 2 - Depreciation on Unregistered Assets:Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on assets not registered in the assessee's name, the Tribunal found that the assets were used in the business, and the C.I.T.(A) had decided in favor of the assessee based on earlier ITAT decisions for the years 1994-95 to 2005-06. The Tribunal noted that the C.I.T.(A) followed the decisions of the ITAT, which were based on Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the C.I.T.(A)'s decision, affirming that no error was committed. The Departmental Representative acknowledged that the issues were covered by the ITAT order in favor of the assessee, although the department was in appeal before the Delhi High Court. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, deciding the issues in favor of the assessee based on established precedent.Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
TaxTMI 