2014 (8) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9;ble High Court J&K, Jammu which has been delivered not on merits of the issue but holding the receipt to be a capital receipt only because the policy under which the same was paid envisaged tackling the unemployment in the State, which cannot be said to be a good test for deciding whether a receipt is a trading receipt or a capital receipt. 2. On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in facts and circumstances and in law in not appreciating the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ponni Sugar & Sahney Steel and press works Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held such receipts to be the revenue receipts inasmuch as in that case payments were made only after the industries had be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 80IB of the Income-tax Act (in short "the Act"), on excise duty refund and interest subsidy, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in 'M/s Shree Balaji Alloys and Ors. Vs. CIT', 333 ITR 335(J&K). 5. Ground nos. 1 to 4 stand already decided by this Bench in favour of the assessee vide order dated 01.06.2012, passed in ITA No. 146(Asr)/2012, for the assessment year 2008-09, in the first round. This appeal is again before us, as in our said order, ground no 5 inadvertently remained undecided. The Department's application in this regard, being M.A. 88(Asr)/2013, was allowed by the Bench vide order dated 19.05.2014(copy on record). 6. Apropos ground no. 5, the Assessing Officer held the assessment year 2003-04 to be the in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: "In view of consistent view taken by various High Courts, we do not find any reason to take a different view and are in respectful agreement with the dicta laid down in the aforesaid judgments. It is more so when even this Court, way back in the year 1984, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Food Specialities Ltd., 15 ITR 790, following the ration of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. (supra) as is clear from the following:- As regards the year of manufacture, on the question whether there can be an experimental period, a reference was made to the case of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd, 93 ITR 548 and Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. CIT, 9119 in both of which it was held that manufacturing for the purpose of section 15C of the 1922 Act and....