9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Treatment of Sales Tax Subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on assets not registered in the name of the assessee. 3. Reduction of synchronization charges from profits for computing deduction u/s 80-IA. 4. Non-reduction of book profits u/s 115JB by profit from export business u/s 80 HHC. Issue 1 - Sales Tax Subsidy: The appellant claimed Sales Tax Subsidy as a capital receipt, but the Assessing Officer treated it as a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on earlier orders of the ITAT and CIT(A) in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing precedents and Special Bench decisions. Issue 2 - Depreciation on Unregistered Assets: The assessee claimed depreciation on assets not registered in their name. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, following ITAT decisions and Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision and declined to interfere. Issue 3 - Synchronization Charges Deduction: The AO reduced synchronization charges from profits for computing deduction u/s 80-IA, despite the liability not being crystallized. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the liability had accrued during the relevant year, even though not debited to the P&L A/c. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the debit to the P&L A/c fair and reasonable, and upheld the decision based on consistency with previous years. Issue 4 - Book Profits Deduction for Export Business: The AO did not reduce book profits u/s 115JB by the profit from export business u/s 80 HHC. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing a decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere, as the facts remained the same as in the previous year. In conclusion, both the revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal based on the detailed analysis and application of relevant legal principles and precedents.
|
