<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (3) TMI 1807 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286785</link>
    <description>Interest subsidy received under TUFS/State incentive scheme was held to be a capital receipt because, following binding co-ordinate bench precedent on an identical incentive scheme, the subsidy was treated as intended to promote industrial activity and not as trading income; the addition was deleted and the Revenue&#039;s ground failed. Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of a 100% EOU against profits of a non-eligible unit was allowed since the assessee had validly opted out of s.10B under s.10B(8), making the EOU profits subject to ss.70-72, reinforced by SC treating s.10B as a deduction provision; the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. Additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) was allowed in a subsequent year as &quot;new&quot; refers to the asset&#039;s status at acquisition/installation and the restriction to the initial year ceased from 01.04.2006; the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. Under s.115JB, profit on sale of fixed assets was excluded from book profit by applying Tribunal precedent; the deletion was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1807 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286785</link>
      <description>Interest subsidy received under TUFS/State incentive scheme was held to be a capital receipt because, following binding co-ordinate bench precedent on an identical incentive scheme, the subsidy was treated as intended to promote industrial activity and not as trading income; the addition was deleted and the Revenue&#039;s ground failed. Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of a 100% EOU against profits of a non-eligible unit was allowed since the assessee had validly opted out of s.10B under s.10B(8), making the EOU profits subject to ss.70-72, reinforced by SC treating s.10B as a deduction provision; the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. Additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) was allowed in a subsequent year as &quot;new&quot; refers to the asset&#039;s status at acquisition/installation and the restriction to the initial year ceased from 01.04.2006; the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. Under s.115JB, profit on sale of fixed assets was excluded from book profit by applying Tribunal precedent; the deletion was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>