TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,31,18,000/- made on account of treatment of sales tax subsidy as revenue receipts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO not to charge interest u/s. 234B. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 4. In this case assessee has received a sales tax subsidy of Rs. 5,77,95,190/- for A.Y. 2005-06, Rs. 331,18,000/- for A.Y. 2006-07 from the Government of Maharastara as revenue receipt. In the return of income following decision of the Special Bench of the tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mumbai) the receipt was shown as a capital receipt not liable to tax. However the AO did not agree with this proposition. The AO further relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. 228 ITR 253 and Delhi High Court decision in case of Steel Authority of India 257 ITR 241 and Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. 191 ITR 518 and held that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....site. * Expenditure of at least 25% of total capital cost of project. * Tying up means of finance for project to satisfaction of implementing authority. * Acquisition of at least 10% of total fixed assets at site. * Expenditure of at least 25% of total capital cost of project. Granting of Eligibility Certificate from SICOM (implementing authority) Effective from date of commencement of commercial production. Effective from date of commencement of commercial production. Mode of disbursement of sales tax incentive a) By way of Exemption of purchase tax, sales tax on purchase of raw materials, sales tax payable on sale of finished goods, CST on sale of finished goods as a % of fixed capital investment. b) By way of interest free unsecured loans or refund. a) By way of Exemption of purchase tax, sales tax on purchase of raw materials, sales tax payable on sale of finished goods, CST on sale of finished goods as a % of fixed capital investment. b) By way of interest free unsecured loans. c) By way of deferral of payment of sales tax liability. Other benefits * Refund of octroi without any monetary ceiling * 75% contribution towards prepara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd. that there is no difference between the sales tax subsidy scheme 1979 vis-a-vis the sales tax subsidy scheme of 1993, following the Mumbai ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Reliance Industries 88 ITD 273, which has been subsequently upheld by the Bombay High Court as reported in 2010-TIOL-210-HC-MUM and the Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Everest Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 814/Mum/2007 and the appellant having received the sales tax subsidy under the 1993 scheme, the amount involved being sales tax subsidy was a capital receipt. 7. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedents relied upon. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that issue in dispute was covered by the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Though the scheme is applicable in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. was 1979 scheme, however, in the 1993 scheme terms and conditions were of the same nature and intent. For this purpose, a comparative chart has been referred by the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 234B of the Act, interest is leviable in a case where an assessee defaults in payment of advance tax. Thus, the primary condition for imposition of interest under section 234B of the Act is default on the part of the assessee in payment of advance tax. In terms of sections 208 to 210 of the Act, it will be further noticed that an assessee is required to compute and pay advance tax during the relevant previous year on the estimated income of the assessee. In the present case, the appellant paid advance tax by estimating its income during the previous year 2004- 05 in accordance with the then prevailing legal position and the provisions of the Act. It is only on account of subsequent retrospective amendment in law that the advance tax paid by the appellant would faIl short of the tax payable on the income as per the amended law. It was not possible for the appellant to foresee the retrospective amendment to take place after more than 5 years from the end of the relevant previous year and pay advance tax on the basis of the amended law. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that there was any default on the part of the appellant in payment of advance tax in accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee, as has been recognized in Priyanka Overseas Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 75 TTJ (Del) 783: (2001) 79 ITD 353 (Del), in a similar fact situation. It was noted therein that from CBDT Order No. F 400/234/95-IT(BJ, dt. 21st May, 1996, it was clear that the intention of the tax authorities was not to levy interest where any amendment came with retrospective effect This gets further corroborated from the fact that while processing the return of income, the AO himself did not charge interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the Act Further, it has been time and again held that where the assessee is under a bona fide belief and based his estimate of income as per the law prevailing at the relevant time, no interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the Act is leviable. This is the position settled under col. 1 p. 3 of the CIT(A)'s order: Aero Leather (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (1992) 194 ITR 7 (Del); Asstt CIT vs. Jindal Irrigation Systems Ltd. (1996) 56 ITD 164 (Hyd); Sant Lal vs. Union of India (1996) 134 CTR (P&H) 581 : (1996) 222 ITR 375 (P&H); A.M. Sainalabdeen Musaliar vs. Union of India & Ors. (1999) 155 CTR (Ker) 647: (2000) 242 ITR 400 ....