2012 (11) TMI 104 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80 IB - Central Excise Duty refund & interest subsidy - Capital vs Revenue Receipts Excise duty refund and Interest Subsidy - Following the decision of Court in case of M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT 2011 (1) TMI 394 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT Held that - Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy is to be treated as Capital receipt and not liable to be taxed - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act Held that - Assessee has failed to establish before the Revenue Authorities as well as before us that the assessee has advanced the funds for any business purpose to sister concern - no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by first appellate authority - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction under section 80IB on Excise Duty Refund & Interest Subsidy
2. Addition on account of inadmissible items for higher deduction

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deduction under section 80IB on Excise Duty Refund & Interest Subsidy. The Revenue questioned the CIT(A)'s decision to allow relief based on the High Court's order treating the receipts as capital receipts. The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in favor of the assessee by the High Court, holding the receipts as capital receipts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the High Court's judgment, dismissing the Revenue's grounds 1 to 4 related to the excise duty refund and interest subsidy. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions on this issue.

2. Another issue raised was the addition on account of inadmissible items for higher deduction. The CIT(A) had allowed relief to the assessee on this ground, holding that the items were clearly inadmissible. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order, stating that adding back the inadmissible items would enhance the assessee's income without altering the nature of the profit. The Tribunal found that the deduction under section 80IB was allowable on account of the inadmissible items, and the CIT(A) had rightly decided this issue in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground related to the inadmissible items.

3. In the Cross Objection (C.O.), the assessee challenged the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to establish that the funds were advanced for any business purpose. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, relying on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the assessee's challenge, noting the lack of evidence regarding the funds being advanced for business purposes. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned decision on this issue.

In conclusion, both the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal based on the detailed analysis and findings on the issues raised.