TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the said amount is to be included in the business profits for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act." 2. The Ld. counsel of the assessee, Sh. Salil Kapoor, filed a chart and pointed out that originally in assessment year 2005-06, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, 'the Act') on the refund of excise duty, which was not allowed by the A.O. By the time, the matter travelled to the Tribunal an additional ground was raised stating that refund of excise duty should be treated as capital receipt. Though the additional ground was admitted but the whole matter was decided against the assessee and the matter travelled before the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court, has to be treated as Jurisdictional High Court decision. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal, submitted that S.L.P. against the decision of the Hon'ble J & K High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra) has been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.11.2011 [CC17898/2011] arising out of the decision of the Hon'ble J & K High Court in ITA No. 2 of 2010 and therefore, the matter should be decided accordingly. 4. We have considered the rival submissions carefully in the light of material on records as well as decisions cited by the parties. In this case, assessee had received excise duty refund amounting to Rs. 19,98,09,716/-and has claimed deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble J & K High Court has discussed the nature of scheme in detail and the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 and CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 and observed as under: "26 A perusal of the Office Memorandum dated June 14, 2002 indicating new industrial policy and other concessions for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, makes it explicit that the concessions were issued to achieve twin objects viz. (i) acceleration of industrial development in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which had been found lagging behind in such development, and (ii) generation of employment in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. 27. Amendment introduced to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neration of employment, so, contemplated, was not only casual or temporary; but was on the other hand, of permanent nature. 30. Considered thus, the paramount consideration of the Central Government in providing the incentives to the new industrial units and substantial expansion of the existing units, was the generation of employment through acceleration of industrial development, to deal with the social problem of unemployment in the State, additionally creating opportunities for self-employment, hence a purpose in public interest. 31. In this view of the matter, the incentives provided to the industrial units, in terms of the new industrial policy, for accelerated industrial development in the State, for creation of such industrial a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... larger public interest of dealing with unemployment in the State, as intended, in terms of the Office Memorandum, was achieved. 34. The other factors, which had weighed with the Tribunal in determine the incentives as production incentives may not be decisive to determining the character of the incentive subsidies, when it is found, as demonstrated in the Office Memorandum, amendment introduced thereto and the statutory notification too that the incentives were provided with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated industrial development." 5. On the basis of the above observations, the Hon'ble J & K High Court has held as under: "35 For all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is another issue which has also been raised vide ground No.6, which reads as under: "6. That the charging of interest u/s 234-B at Rs. 2,21,75,951/- is arbitrary, unjust & illegal on various factual & legal grounds." 10. The issue raised in above ground was not referred to the Special Bench. But since Special Bench consists of Hon'ble President, who in exercise of his powers under section 255(3) of the Act, obtained consent of the parties for adjudication of issue raised in ground No.6 because same was of consequential nature so as to dispose off appeal as such. Both the parties consented that this issue being of consequential in nature may also be decided by the Special Bench. 11. We have heard both the parties and found that ....