9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Upadhaya, S Chopra For the Respondent : R. R. Agrawal ORDER We have heard Sri Govind Krishna for the appellant. Sri R.R. Agarwal appears for the respondent-assessee. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi dated 22.09.2003, relevant for the Assessment Year 1986-87, by which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal are as follows:- "6. Ground No.2: This ground is directed against deletion of addition of Rs.10,31,279/- made on account of excise duty receivable. The version of the assessee in this regard was that this amount has not been debited in the P & L A/c, and it was only balance sheet entry which reflected this amount. The learned CIT (A) has considered the submissions of the assessee and has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment in lieu of Central Excise Duty paid earlier. Thus, in the net result, the appellant was not in receipt of any amount from the Government Department to whom goods were sold. This becomes clear from entries in its books of a/c as mentioned above. It is also surprising to note that the Export Incentive of Rs.4,05,777/-, which was exempt u/s 80 HHC of the I.T.Act was also added to the income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty was received on account of reimbursement and also because this amount was not debited in the P & L a/c by the assessee itself. Ground fails." Sri Govind Krishna has relied upon decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narang Ram Chiranji Lal [(1999) 235 ITR 11]; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chaudhary and Co. [(1996) 217 ITR 431]; and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Agya Shyam Narain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
