Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 306 - HC - Income TaxLoss of eligible units deductiblity from the profits of the eligible units for the purpose of Section 10A deduction - Held that:- The issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent-Assessee not only for the decision of this Court in the Assessee's own case in respect of the Appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07. It also now stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT]. Grant receipt in the shape of allotment of land from the State Government - revenue or capital receipt - Held that:- The grant of land to the Respondent is for setting up a unit with the object of creating employment for 3000 people. In this case, the purpose and object of grant of land admittedly is to generate income and employment for 3000 people. The Apex Court in Chaphalkar Brothers (2017 (12) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT) approved the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011 (1) TMI 394 - Jammu and Kashmir High Court] as held that the incentives given was in the capital field. In fact, even in the earlier decision the Apex Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ) has applied the purpose test to determine the nature of subsidy i.e. in revenue or capital field. In the present facts, the impugned order relies upon the Apex Court decision to hold that the subsidy in the form of lands is in the capital field. - No substantial question of law. Appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law as listed at Sr.Nos. 1, 3 and 4
|