AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Unit. The A.O. was, therefore, directed to allow the claim and modify the assessment order. 5. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Order of the A.O. 6. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that expenditure has been incurred towards florring of the Udhampur Unit which was an old unit and does not bring any asset for enduring nature. The expenditure contains stone dust, cement, M.S. Gate, Kota Stone, fittings etc., the details of which were filed before A.O. He has relied upon decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., ICI India Pvt. Ltd., 139 ITR 105 (Cal.) (HC) wherein it was held that repairs carried out byt he assessee to building to prevent further deterioration was revenue expenditure. 7. After considering the rival submissions, we do not find any infirmity to interfere with the Orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Since the existing unit of assessee have been repaired and no new asset has come into existence, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) on verification of bills and vouchers, correctly held that same are revenue expenditure in nature. This Ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 8. On Ground No.3, Revenue challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer to consider the claim of assessee which was not raised in revised return. The assessee relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., [2008] 172 Taxman 258 (Del.) wherein it was held that "Tribunal had power to allow a relief to assessee to which it was otherwise entitled even though no claim was made by assessee in the return." Similarly, the assessee relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). The Ld. CIT(A) considering the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court above and in the light of material on record, allowed the claim of assessee. His findings in paras 3.1 and 3.2 of the Order is reproduced as under : "3.1. Having gone through the detailed submissions of the appellant, the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer and the material facts placed on the record, it emerges from the facts that the Assessing Officer has not allowed the exclusion of subsidy received from the Excise Department under the normal provisions of the Act by holding that the appellant had not made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it then the receipt of the subsidy was on capital account. Therefore, it is the object for which the subsidy/ assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form or the mechanism through which the subsidy is given are irrelevant." 16. Perusal of the judgments in Sahney Steel (supra) and Ponni Sugars (supra), therefore, reveals that the apex Court had applied the above quoted dictum to determine the purpose, which the two schemes had intended to achieve by the incentive subsidies, permissible under the schemes in question in those cases. It was, therefore, in the context of respective subsidy incentive schemes in the two cases, that the subsidy in Sahney Steel (supra) was held to be revenue receipt whereas the subsidy in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was held as capital receipt. 17. We are supported in taking this view by the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a later decision reported as Mepco Industries Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (2009) 227 CTR (SC) 313 : (2009) 31 DTR (SC) 305 :2009 (7) SCC 564, where the above dictum was reiterated as follows : "Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Etc. (supra) was a case which dealt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... necessity of referring to the judgments of other High Courts of the country referred to by the appellants' learned counsel, some of which had been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovereferred cases. 21. Thus, finding that the New Industrial Policy and other concessions for the State of Jammu & Kashmir have not been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal, we proceed to examine the true intent and purpose underlying the Policy and concessions contemplated by the Office Memorandum of 14th June, 2002 and the statutory notifications issued in this behalf. 22. Perusal of the Office Memorandum dt. 14th June, 2002 indicating New Industrial Policy and other concessions for the State of Jammu & Kashmir, makes it explicit that the concessions were issued to achieve twin objects viz. (i) Acceleration of industrial development in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, which had been found lagging behind in such development and (ii) Generation of employment in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Amendment introduced to the Office Memorandum vide notification of 28th Nov., 2003 of the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etch of reasoning, be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of assessees alone. 27. Thus, looking to the purpose of eradication of the social problem of unemployment in the State by acceleration of the industrial development and removing backwardness of the area that lagged behind in industrial development, which is certainly a purpose in the public interest, the incentives provided by the Office Memorandum and statutory notifications issued in this behalf, to the appellant-assessees cannot be construed as mere production and trade incentives, as held by the Tribunal. 28. Making of additional provision in the scheme that incentives would become available to the industrial units, entitled thereto, from the date of commencement of the commercial production, and that these were not required for creation of new assets cannot be viewed in isolation to treat the incentives as production incentives, as held by the Tribunal, for the measure so taken, appears to have been intended to ensure that the incentives were made available only to the bona fide industrial units so that larger public interest of dealing with unemployment in the State, as intended, in te....