TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sites paid to Sh. Umesh Kumar Modi, provisions of Section 40A(5) (c) were not applicable and the case was covered by First Proviso to section 40A(5) (a) of I.T. Act? 2. Whether ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that the 10 ton Furnace Division and Steel Unit „B‟ constitute new industrial undertaking to enable the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80J of I.T. Act." 3. Whether ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,02,037/- being the excess price realized by the assessee on sale of Sugar was not a revenue receipt in hands of assessee and as such not taxable in its hands?. 4. Whether ITAT was correct in law and on facts in holding that assessee is entitled to initial depreciation u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-76, the claims of the assessee were allowed. The assessee, once given the deduction under Section 80J of the Act is entitled to such a deduction for a period of 5 years. If the assessee has been allowed the benefit of Section 80J in the last three preceding years, there is no reason to deny the same for the instant assessment year. We, therefore, answer this issue also in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. As far as question no.3 is concerned, the same arises in the following factual background:- The assessee had challenged the fixation of price by the Government for sale of levy sugar under the Essential Commodities Ac by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad. The Allahabad High Court granted interim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manner vide its decision dated 2.5.2007:- "So far as the second question is concerned, it is covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills (2005) 194(TR Reports 170 in favour of the assessee and against the department. No good reason has been shown to us from the departments side to take a different view. Accordingly, the second question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department in the light of the aforesaid decision of a Division Bench of this Court. Reference is disposed of finally." 7. It is clear from the above that the High Court followed its decision in Dhampur Sugar Mills (supra). We have been taken through the said judgment. In that case also, condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g prior to the impugned Notification. Taking note of the fact that no condition was imposed which passing such an order, the Supreme Court held that receipt of the excess amount would be treated as revenue receipt as it was not hedged with any condition. The Supreme Court specifically drew distinction between the interim orders passed by the Courts where the stay orders were not hedged with conditions and the orders which were conditional like the case of the assessee here and this distinction is discussed by the Supreme Court in the following words:- "Learned senior counsel for the assessee-appellant relied on three decisions by different High Courts and submitted that in identical facts and circumstances the price of sugar realized in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the Supreme Court. We may reproduce the following portion from that judgment for our benefit "Applying the principles laid down by the apex court in the cases of K.C. P. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 421 and Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) to the facts of the present case, we find that here also the right to collect/realize extra levy sugar price was on account of the interim order dated July 27, 1972, passed by this Court which was hedged with certain conditions. Thus, the right to receive the payment had been in dispute. It, therefore, did not form part of the trading receipt of the respondent-assessee. We are in respectful agreement with the earlier decision of this Court, which is inter partes re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness and the income of each such person chargeable under the head "salaries" is seven thousand five hundred or less, or where the building is used solely or mainly for the welfare of such persons as a hospital, creche, school, canteen, library, recreational centre, shelter, rest room or lunch room, a sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of the building to the assessee in respect of the previous year of erection of the building; but any such sum shall not be deductible in determining the written down value for the purposes of clause (ii) of sub-section (1)" 13. Admittedly, the term "building" is not defined under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, one will have to fall back on the meaning which is assigned to this term in common pa....