https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759643 ITAT Delhi dismissed revenue's appeal on two grounds. First, regarding translation gain addition, CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance as gains arose from merger of US branch balance sheet conversion per AS 11, not revenue transactions. CBDT Circular 10/2017 clarified such valuation gains/losses aren't real income. Second, on excise duty refund treatment, CIT(A) properly classified it as capital receipt rather than revenue receipt, as the refund was incentive for industrial development in Kutch region under government notification, satisfying purpose test for capital nature per Gujarat HC ruling on promissory estoppel principles. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Oct 2024 08:54:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759643 ITAT Delhi dismissed revenue's appeal on two grounds. First, regarding translation gain addition, CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance as gains arose from merger of US branch balance sheet conversion per AS 11, not revenue transactions. CBDT Circular 10/2017 clarified such valuation gains/losses aren't real income. Second, on excise duty refund treatment, CIT(A) properly classified it as capital receipt rather than revenue receipt, as the refund was incentive for industrial development in Kutch region under government notification, satisfying purpose test for capital nature per Gujarat HC ruling on promissory estoppel principles. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759643