9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsal, JJ. Salil Mishra for the Appellant Piyush Kaushik for the Respondent ORDER K.G. Bansal, Accountant Member:- 1. In this case, the Tribunal had passed the order on 30th May, 2008, in which the order passed by the learned CIT, Moradabad on 21st March, 2006, was set aside and the order of the AO was restored. The Revenue moved an application under s. 254(2) of the Act on 23rd July, 2010 to the effect that there was a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal, which may be rectified. It has been mentioned that the revisionary order was passed to withdraw deduction under s. 80-IB granted by the AO on export incentives received by the assessee. This issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 553 : (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC). In that case, the AO, on the basis of the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dusad Industries (1986) 51 CTR (MP) 217 : (1986) 162 ITR 784 (MP), held that the power subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. The CIT revised this order and without assigning any reason held that the subsidy was revenue receipt. Subsequently, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was received in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC), in which it was held that the power subsidy is the revenue receipt. The Hon'ble Court held that the CIT did not assig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order. We are dealing with an appeal arising out of revisionary order. This order was passed on 21st March, 2006. On that date, decisions of Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court were in favour of the assessee and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court was in favour of the Revenue. These cases have been narrated in the impugned order. There was no decision available from the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the position of law was contentious in the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. The AO followed the decisions of Delhi and Gujarat High Courts. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) was rendered on 31st Aug., 2009, i.e., three years and five months after passing the revisionary or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
