TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at:- The issue now stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT ) wherein held income does not accrue in the year of export but in the year in which the imports are made.Even if it is assumed that the assessee was entitled to the benefits under the advance licences as well as under the duty entitlement pass book, there was no corresponding liability on the customs authorities to pass on the benefit of duty free imports to the assessee until the goods are actually imported and made available for clearance. The benefits represent, at best, a hypothetical income which may or may not materialise and its money value is therefore not the income of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the advance license receivable by the assessee is to be taxed in the year in which the benefits actually accrue after the imports are effected and not in the year in which the licence is granted tot he licensee/assessee? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest on DPEA liability is to be allowed as expenditure on year to year basis without appreciating the fact that the interest liability was neither claimed as deduction in the return of income nor claimed as expenses in its books of account and at the best was treated as liability in the nature of contingen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the disallowance made by him as part of profit of eligible unit on proportionate basis for the purpose of deduction u/s 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that deduction u/s 80I and 80IA of the Act cannot be allowed more than what was claimed by the assessee? (x) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the expenditure claimed for payment made under Voluntary retirement Scheme of the company, holding the expenditure to be revenue in nature without appreciating that the expenditure either ought to be amortized for 5 years as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel for the revenue very fairly states that the revenue on identical issue had preferred an appeal to this Court from the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 1996-97 being Income Tax Appeal No. 6715 of 2010. This Court by an order dated 17th December, 2012 did not entertain the revenue's appeal on this issue. Therefore, this issue stands considered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. (b) Accordingly, the question as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Re. question (v) : (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue by following the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. International Fisheries Ltd., re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
