Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 368 - AT - Income TaxRejection of deduction u/s. 80IC(2) - failure to obtain NOC from the Pollution Control Board - Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim as not to appreciate the fact that ecotourism is the condition precedent, to be complied with for hotels for claiming deduction u/s. 80IC? - Held that:- No interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), because the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute in favor of the assessee by holding after appreciating the evidence filed by the assessee as well as various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and the decisions of the ITAT. We further find considerable cogency in the assessee’s counsel submissions that the present issue involved in the Revenue’s Appeals is squarely covered by the ITAT decision in the case of Bidhi Chand Singhal [2010 (11) TMI 957 - ITAT DELHI] for AY 2006-07 and in Anchal Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012 (10) TMI 639 - ITAT, DELHI] for AY 2005-06 to 2006-07 . Moreover, it is a settled law that, a deduction once granted cannot be re-examined in the succeeding assessment years. However, in the assessee’s own case the claim of deduction by the assessee had been examined in the AY 2006-07 and accepted by the Revenue, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to allow such claim in the succeeding assessment years. - Decided in favour of assessee Subsidy received from the Government under the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme 2003 - revenue receipt v/s capital receipt - Held that:- We are in agreement with the contention of the Ld. Counsel that the issue is squarely covered by the High Court of J&K in the case of Shri Balaji Alloys vs. CIT reported in [2011 (1) TMI 394 - Jammu and Kashmir High Court ] wherein it was held that “the finding of the Tribunal on the first issue that the Excise Duty Refund, Interest Subsidy and Insurance Subsidy were Production Incentives, hence, revenue Receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd.’s case reported in [1997 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ] and CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in [2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ]. The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were Revenue Receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to be Capital Receipt in the hands of the Assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act in respect of profits derived from sale in the restaurant to non-resident customers - Held that:- we find that the profits derive from sale in the restaurant to non-resident customers are derived from the undertaking and as such profit is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. Our view is supported by the following judgments:- Liberty India and Ors. Vs. CIT [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT ] and CIT vs. Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|