9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 844 - AT - Income TaxCapital Receipt vs Revenue Receipt - Deduction u/s 80IB - Excise duty refund, interest subsidy and insurance subsidy Held that - Incentives provided to the industrial units, in terms of the new industrial policy, for accelerated industrial development in the State, for creation of such industrial atmosphere and environment, which would provide additional permanent source of employment to the unemployed in State of Jammu and Kashmir, were in fact, in the nature of creation of new assets of industrial atmosphere and environment, having the potential of employment generation to achieve a social object. Such incentives, designed to achieve public purpose, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of assesses alone Order of CIT(A) in holding that the Excise Duty refund is to be treated as capital receipt in the hands of the assessee and not liable to be taxed is confirmed appeal by revenue is dismissed. Decisions in in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT and Another 2011 (1) TMI 394 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT followed.
Issues:
- Whether the Excise Duty refund is a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed. - Whether the assessees are entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the excise duty refund and interest subsidy. - Whether the incentives provided were in the nature of creation of new assets for employment generation. - Whether the incentives were production incentives or capital receipts. Analysis: Issue 1: Excise Duty Refund Taxability The appeals questioned the allowance of deduction under section 80IB on Central Excise Duty refund by the CIT(A). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jammu & Kashmir held that the Excise Duty refund is a capital receipt and not taxable. The Court analyzed the industrial policy's objective to accelerate industrial development and generate employment. It emphasized that the incentives were aimed at creating permanent employment opportunities, aligning with public interest. The Court concluded that the Excise Duty refund is a capital receipt, following precedents like the Sahney Steel case. Issue 2: Deduction under Section 80IB The question of whether the assessees are entitled to deduction under section 80IB on the excise duty refund and interest subsidy was addressed. The High Court's decision on the capital nature of the Excise Duty refund impacted this issue. Since the Excise Duty refund was considered a capital receipt, the question of deduction under section 80IB did not require a separate opinion. Issue 3: Nature of Incentives Provided The Court examined whether the incentives provided were for employment generation and creation of new assets. It highlighted the purpose of the incentives in tackling unemployment and accelerating industrial development. The Court emphasized that the incentives were not mere production incentives but aimed at achieving a social objective in the public interest. The analysis of the industrial policy and statutory notifications supported the view that the incentives were for creating perpetual employment opportunities. Issue 4: Production Incentives vs. Capital Receipts The distinction between production incentives and capital receipts was crucial in this case. The High Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the incentives were production incentives. It emphasized that the incentives were intended to address unemployment issues and accelerate industrial development. The Court's decision favored treating the incentives as capital receipts, aligning with the public interest objective of the industrial policy. In conclusion, the judgment confirmed that the Excise Duty refund is a capital receipt and not taxable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, upholding the orders of the CIT(A) on the tax treatment of the Excise Duty refund.
|
