9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the Revenue, urges the following reframed question of law for our consideration: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is in error in treating foreign exchange losses as operating expenditure when these transactions did not have a significant impact on the operation of the company? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of eligible units are not to be deducted from the profits of the eligible units for the purpose of Section 10A deduction? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in relying on the decision of an earlier year to hold that data line expenditure i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent claimed that the purpose/object of the subsidy received in the form of land was capital in nature as purpose/object of giving subsidy was to generate employment to over 3000 people in Hyderabad. This was not accepted by a draft assessment order dated 15 February 2013. The Assessing Officer held that an amount of Rs. 1.20 Crores is to be brought to tax as income as he considered it to be revenue in nature. (b) Being aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the Respondent filed an application to the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP" for short) under Section 144C(I) of the Act. By an order dated 31 October 2013, the DRP upheld the view of Assessing Officer on the above issue, in the directions given under Section 144C(5) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court while dismissing the Appeal of the Revenue in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Balaji Alloys (decided on 19 April 2016). In the above case, the incentives given was for generation of employment and industrial development. Both the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and the Apex Court 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. (supra) 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. (f) In the above view, this question does not give rise to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
