TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und Nos.3 and 4 of the appeal read as under:- 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law refund of excise duty amounting to ₹ 8,16,87,809/- is a capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ). 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law interest subsidy amounting to ₹ 8,05,993/- is a capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing of Aluminium ingots at its industrial unit located at 36B, Industrial Extension Area, Kathua (J K). During the year under consideration, the assessee received refund of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under the Act? 7. The Hon ble High Court vide judgment dated 31-1-2011 in the case of M/s.Shree Balaji Alloys, Kathua, reported in (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J K) decided the issue, observing as under:- In this view of the matter, the incentives provided to the industrial units, in terms of the new industrial policy, for accelerated industrial development in the State, for creation of such industrial atmosphere and environment, which would provide additional permanent source of employment to the unemployed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, were in fact, in the nature of creation of new assets of industrial atmosphere and environment, having the potential of employment generation to achieve a social object. Such incentives, designed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereto and the statutory notification too that the incentives were provided with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated industrial development. For all what ha been said above, 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 the hon ble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel case [1997] 228 ITR 253 and Ponni Sugars case [2008] 306 ITR 391. The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were revenue receipt is, accordingly, set-aside holding the incentives to be capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
