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>ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Excise Duty Refund Tax Treatment</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer, Versus M/s. Natural Herbal Products, & Others</h3> Income Tax Officer, Versus M/s. Natural Herbal Products, & Others - TMI Issues:Whether the CIT(A) was right in allowing relief on deduction u/s 80IB on Central Excise Duty refund by relying upon High Court ordersRs.Whether the CIT(A) was right in not appreciating judgments of the Supreme Court in similar casesRs.Whether the CIT(A) was right in not considering the decision in Seaham Harbour Dock Company for determining trading or capital receiptRs.Whether the CIT(A) was right in not applying the purpose test as laid down by the Supreme CourtRs.Whether the Excise Duty refund should be treated as a capital receipt and not liable to be taxedRs.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Amritsar, heard ten appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of CIT(A), Jammu, involving common issues. The Revenue raised common grounds in all appeals regarding the deduction u/s 80IB on Central Excise Duty refund. Despite notices sent for a hearing, neither the assessees nor their representatives attended. The facts presented by the Revenue were undisputed, leading to no repetition. The issues in dispute were found in favor of the assessee based on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case.The High Court discussed the industrial policy and incentives provided for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, emphasizing the objective of accelerating industrial development and generating employment. The Court referred to the purpose test laid down by the Supreme Court and concluded that the incentives were in the public interest, aimed at eradicating unemployment. The Court held that the Excise Duty refund should be treated as a capital receipt, not liable to be taxed, based on previous case law and the public interest served by the incentives.Following the High Court's judgment, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the Excise Duty refund is a capital receipt and not taxable. Consequently, all ten appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 1st June 2012.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
