TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the excise duty refund of Rs. 1,65,02,244/- received by the assessee constituted a capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition of Rs. 11,22,561/- on account of Rebate & Discount relates to purchase of material which was shown on the credit side of the profit & Loss account and the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition of Rs. 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Alloys & Others Vs. CIT in ITA No.2 of 2010 & Others dated 31.1.2011 had held that the excise duty refund received by the assessee by virtue of the policy of Government of Jammu & Kashmir was a capital receipt and hence not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The assessee also pointed out that this decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 138 DTR 36. The assessee also stated that the ITAT, in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 had held the refund of the excise duty as capital in nature. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) after considering the assessee's submissions deleted the addition made by following the order of the I.T.A.T. in assessee's own case for assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of industrial development in the State and generation of employment which were public purposes and thus could not be construed as operational incentives. Thus it is settled that subsidy received by way of refund of excise duty for setting up new industrial undertaking is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. 10. In view of the same, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition made on account of excise duty refund amounting to Rs. 1,65,02,244/-. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed in the above terms. 11. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is against the action of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,22,561/- made on account of rebate and discount re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16. The learned CIT (Appeals) after considering the assessee's submissions deleted the disallowance made relying upon the decision of the I.T.A.T. in assessee's own assessee for assessment year 2010-11. 14. Before us, the learned D.R. relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer, while the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). 15. Having heard both the parties, we find no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue. Undisputedly, identical issue of allowance of deduction u/s 80IB on rebates and discounts earned by the assessee on purchases made by it had arisen in the case of the assessee in assessment year 2010-11 wherein the I.T.A.T. had held that the assessee was entitled to deduction on the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s interest received from other sources. The assessee submitted that no deduction u/s 80IB had been claimed on Rs. 1,43,585/-. The learned CIT (Appeals) after considering assessee's submissions and after perusing the computation of income found that the assessee had not claimed deduction on interest income of Rs. 1,43,585/-. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction as per law after due verification. 19. Before us, the learned D.R. argued that the learned CIT (Appeals) had erred in allowing deduction under section 80IB on the interest amounting to Rs. 77,249/-. 20. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, pointed out that the learned CIT (Appeals) had not allowed the assessee deduction on the interest of ....