9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the amount of remission of VAT granted by the State Government. Since the issue in all the appeals are identical, we take up IT(SS)A No. 148/Kol/2016 for AY 2007-08 as the lead case and the decision of it shall be followed in all other 17 appeals preferred by the assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and dealing in cement in its factory at Meghalaya. There was a search operation u/s. 132 of the Act at various premises of the assessee including its factory premises at Meghalaya on 18th and 19th September, 2012. The AO noted that the Central Government and State Government in order to encourage and develop industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues involved in the appeals in both the assessment years filed by the Revenue are covered by the decision of this Tribunal in favour of the assessee dated 19.03.2010 and 05.04.2010 through which we have gone through. The issue relating to the Central excise duty refund is duly covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CIT-vs- Meghalaya Steels Ltd. while the decision on the issue of VAT/sales tax remission is duly covered by the following decisions :- S. No. ITA No. Date of Order Issue Name of the assessee I. 46/Gau/2009 19.03.2010 Central Excise Refund Meghalaya Steels Ltd. ii. 202/Gau/2008 19.03.2010 Central Excise Refund Satyam Ispat Ltd. iii. 50/Gau/2009 05.04.2010 Central Excise Refundand VAT Remission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservations made by us in respect of central excise refund are squarely applicable even to the VAT remission also. Keeping in view of this finding, we find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, we confirm the same." 5. In the light of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Tribunal in assessee's own case and that of identical cases, we are of the considered opinion that the VAT remission is akin to the issue of Central Excise Refund which has already been settled in the case of M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., supra, and on the aforesaid reasoning given by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. G. L. Coke Pvt. Ltd., supra, we concur and allow the deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act claimed by the assessee in respect to the VAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
