9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a new investment under the expansion programme as per fixed assets valuation certificate issued by the DIC dated April 16, 1999. As per the said certificate the appellant is entitled to claim tax exemption benefit with effect from December 12, 1997 for a period of six years and limited to Rs. 57,80,000 on the sale of their finished products that is 80 per cent of the investment made under the expansion programme. For the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 the assessing authority concluded the assessments by allowing tax benefit under the expansion programme by considering the average tax liability for the preceding three years. The assessee however has disputed the tax benefit. Accordingly he preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notification dated October 11, 1995. She contends that by the notification dated October 11, 1995 the tax liability eligible for exemption shall be the difference between the total tax liability namely, the tax liability under the KST Act and the tax liability under the CST Act and the average total liability of the three years immediately preceding the year in which the investment was sought expansion/ modernization has taken place. She contends that in the instant case, the same has not been done. Therefore, denied the benefit to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, Smt. Sujatha, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 1997-98. The aggregate of the preceding three years that is 1993-94, 1995-96, 1997-98 have been taken into consideration while granting the exemption. The assessing authority has rightly interpreted the notifications and which has been upheld by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the grounds urged therein and has taken a decision that does not call for any interference. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The assessee has been granted the appropriate relief in terms of the notifications. We do not see any error committed by the authorities that calls for interference. 9. It is further contended that the order of the Tribunal passed on the first occasion dated February 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
