TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of ₹ 62,59,97,849/- made on account of Sales Tax Subsidy which was claimed as capital receipts by the assessee, but rightly treated as revenue receipts by the Assessing Officer. 2.1. The assessee is running a plant located at Sahibabad district Ghaziabad, U.P, a notified backward area, consequently entitled to exemption under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The quantum and period of the subsidy dependant on the point of time at which the plant commenced production and is determinable as a percentage of the fixed capital investment. In the computation of income filed along with the return of income, the amount of subsidy availed by the company during the year under consideration has been treated as capital subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n assets, which were not registered in the assessee s name. There is no dispute as to the fact that those assets were used in the course of assessee s business and the CIT(A) found that the ITAT in the assessee s own case for all the earlier years i.e. 1994-95 to 2005-06 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Cement Ltd. 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals Ltd. 239 ITR 775. 3.2. After hearing both sides we find that the CIT(A) has not committed any error in following the decisions of the ITAT in assessee s own case which themselves are based upon the binding precedent of the Apex Court, as cited supra. We decline to interfere. 4. Ground no. 3: This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her hand, the learned DR supported the order of CIT(A). 5.3. We have heard rival submissions. In A.Y. 2005-06 the very same issue came up before the ITAT and the ITAT Delhi Bench A vide its order dated 28-8-2009 in ITA no. 2104/Del/08 has decided the issue against the assessee by upholding the order of the CIT(A) for that year in the following manner: 6.4. We have considered the rival contentions. The assessee s main contention that the Assessing Officer was not right in reducing synchronization charges from the profits of the eligible units for computation of exemption u/s 80-IA, cannot be accepted. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. The synchronization charges that were levied by the U.P. Power Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterference. . 5.4. No change in facts for the assessment year under consideration has been pointed out by either of the parties. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 6. Ground no. 2: Ground no. 2 in assessee s appeal relates to the action of the AO in not reducing the book profits computed u/s 115JB by an amount of ₹ 33,74,03,462/-claimed to be the amount of profit from export business under section 80 HHC of the Act. 6.1. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee was fair enough to admit that in A.Y. 2005-06 this issue also has been decided by the ITAT in favour of revenue by upholding the order of the CIT(A). He, however, submitted that the assessee has not given up its stand. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
