9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntive received as per the scheme of the Central Govt. had no first degree connection with the industrial undertaking of the assessee and the immediate source of the same being the relevant scheme of the Central Govt. – thus, it could not be considered as profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA/80IB – Decided in favour of Revenue. Admission of additional ground – Held that:- The CIT(A) has not admitted the additional ground on the pretext that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court] precluded him to do so – but the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not fetter on the powers of the CIT(A) to decide additional ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Power Co. which included sale of Sales Tax Benefit of Rs. 74,75,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain why the claim of 80IA on the sale of sales tax benefit should not be disallowed as the same is not derived from the industrial undertaking. The assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 74,75,000/- has been received on sale of sales-tax benefit to M/s. Liberty Oil Mills. The said sales tax benefit has been received by it for its Wind Power Project under the 1998 Power Generation Promotion Policy of the State Government and has been sold to M/s. Liberty Oil Mills after obtaining approval from the Dy. Commissioner of Sales (Incentive). It was further explained that the sales tax benefits received during the year depends upon the generatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him to entertain any additional ground which was not claimed in the return of income or revised return of income and accordingly dismissed this additional ground as not admitted. 7. The Revenue being aggrieved by the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is before us in so far as allowing the deduction u/s. 80IA. 8. At the very outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative brought to our notice that the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 4287/M/2010 dt. 23.12.2011 stated that this issue has been decided in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal and facts being identical, the same view must be taken. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not bring any distinguishing facts/decision before us. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to this conclusion has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 332 ITR 91. As stated hereinabove, facts and issues being identical, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 4287/M/2010, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and that of the AO is restored. 12. The assessee has raised an additional plea claiming that the entire consideration of Rs. 74,75,000/- being the sales tax incentive is to be considered in the nature of capital subsidy and accordingly not subject to tax at all. This plea of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
