9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of Excise Duty refund claimed as exempt under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: The first issue revolves around whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing relief on account of deduction u/s 80IB on Central Excise Duty refund based on the High Court's order, which considered the receipt as a capital receipt due to the policy's aim of tackling unemployment in the State. Issue 2: The second issue questions whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the judgments of the Supreme Court, which held similar receipts as revenue receipts since they were not for setting up industries but for established ones. Issue 3: The third issue concerns whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in not considering the decision in the Seaham Harbour Dock Company case, which provides tests for determining if a receipt is a trading or capital receipt. Issue 4: The fourth issue examines whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in not applying the purpose test as laid down by the Supreme Court, considering that the money received was not mandated for substantial expansion of the industry. Judgment Summary: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar heard thirty-seven appeals by the Revenue on the common issue of Excise Duty refund under Section 80IB. The AO disallowed the claim, but the Ld. CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, following a High Court decision treating the refund as a capital receipt. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on the High Court's analysis of the industrial policy's objective to generate employment. The High Court concluded that the incentives were for public interest and not mere production incentives, thus classifying the refund as a capital receipt. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all thirty-seven appeals by the Revenue, confirming the Excise Duty refund as a non-taxable capital receipt.
|
