9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Counsel assisted by Rahul Srivastava DR. SATISH CHANDRA J.-The present revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated August 23, 2003 passed by the U.P. Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 36 of 2003. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee established a new unit and made the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax equal to 150 per cent of the additional fixed capital investment of ₹ 1,34,37,160, i.e., up to ₹ 2,01,55,740 was granted to the assessee between the period February 27, 1998 to September 23, 2005, whichever is earlier. Later, the assessee, made a review application stating that its unit is covered both under the expansion as also the diversification scheme and, as such, under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view application was rejected by the competent authority by mentioning that the assessee has not provided the break-up of the fixed capital investment on the individual heads of expansion and diversification but the Tribunal vide its order observed that in the present case, there is already a provision for self-bifurcation of capital investment. On the record of the Divisional Level Committee/Chie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diversification and expansion on 50-50 per cent basis. This finding was never challenged by the Department. In the light of the above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. The direction issued by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
