9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year, i.e., the assessment year 1994-95 and, therefore, the same could not be held to be taxable in the current assessment year. - ITA NO 206/03 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Judgment: Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- 1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act'") has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated August 2, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, (in short "the Tribunal") in I. T. A. Nos. 1200/Chandi/95 and 1543/Chandi/95 relating to the assessment year 1993-94. 2. The Revenue has claimed the following substantial question of law for determination by this court : "Whether the right to rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inalized in the financial year 1993-94, the IPRS incentive accrued in the assessment year 1994-95 and not in 1993-94. 5. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was challenged by both the sides, i.e., the Revenue and the assessee, before the Tribunal, by preferring separate appeals. The appeals of both the sides were dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated August 2, 2002. This is how the Revenue has preferred the instant appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Revenue has raised an issue with regard to taxability of IPRS relating to the assessment year 1993-94. Counsel for the Revenue argued that the IPRS accrued on the date of export, i.e., March 22, 1993, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t requires to be considered is--whether the assessee becomes entitled to IPRS automatically without making such claim to the Government or it is subject to finalization and approval of the Government ? As discussed above, IPRS is allowed by the Govern-ment on account of the price difference between the international and Indian price of raw material consumed in the manufacture of goods, which have been exported. There does not appear to be any automatic formula to determine the difference between the price prevailing in the international market and the price of raw material prevailing in the country. It is also not the case that reimbursement of IPRS was being made at a fixed percentage of the exports. Thus the very nature of the scheme is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. As regards the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink Star [2000] 245 ITR 757 (Bom) the issue before the High Court related to the amounts of Rs. 15,47,005 received by the assessee on the unutilised import licence. In that case the assessee had already exported goods. As per the scheme of the Government the assessee had already exported goods. As per the scheme of the Government the assessee was enti-tled to cash equivalent to 8 per cent. of the unutilised import licence. Thus in that case the percentage of the amounts to be received in respect of the unutilised amount of import licence, was determined at a fixed rate. This is not the case here. The assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
