AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing substantial questions of law for our consideration : "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the road transport subsidy received by the Assessee company of Rs. 13,78,51,483/- was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt as held by the Assessing Officer ? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the power tariff incentive and electricity duty of Rs. 2,63,51,000/- is to be treated as capital receipt and not a revenue receipt as held by the Assessing Officer ? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in allowing int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bearing No.1161 of 2013 in respect of the same respondent-assessee for the Assessment year 1999-00. This Court by an order dated 31st March 2015 dismissed an identical question. It is an agreed position between the parties that this question stands concluded against the revenue by virtue of the order dated 31 March 2015 of this Court. Accordingly, Question C does not give rise to substantial question of law. Hence not entertained. 4. Regarding Question D: (a) Mr. Malhotra learned counsel appearing for the revenue points out the aforesaid question has been admitted by this Court in the Revenue's appeal for Assessment year 1999-00 being Income Tax Appeal No. 1161 of 2013 on 31.3.2015 and invites our attention to question F therein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h 2015. This on the ground that the same is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT vs Raymond Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No.1324 of 2010 rendered on 20 March 2012. In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence not entertained. 6. Regarding Question G: The impugned order of the Tribunal has dismissed the revenue's appeal before it by following its order in respect of the same respondent-assessee for A.Y.1999-00. The revenue had challenged the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 1999-00 in this Court being Income Tax Appeal No.1161 of 2013. However, no challenge was made with regard to the decision of the Tribunal on this issue. The revenue havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... temporary structures were related to carrying on business and therefore was an integral part of profit earning process. It only enabled the respondentassessee to carry out its business more efficiently. The expenditure incurred by the appellant was only to set up a temporary arrangements and therefore allowable as revenue expenditure having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. (c) Being aggrieved the revenue carried the issue in an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on examination of the record in the impugned order concluds that the structures were temporary in nature erected at the client's site to enable it to carry on its activity of supplying cement for construction at the client's site. The i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for construction of a stadium. The Assessing Officer by his order dated 31st January 2003 disallowed the same on the ground that the construction of the stadium has no connection with the respondent's business. (b) In appeal the CIT (A) held that the respondent-assessee had two cement units with total capacity of two million tons in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Government of Himachal Pradesh had approached the respondent with a request to contribute towards the construction of a stadium in Himachal Pradesh and be a participant in development of the State. The CIT (A) held that the expenditure incurred was out of consideration of commercial expediency as the respondent-assessee has large cement manufacturing plant in the State....