9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 80IB - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- Goa VAT incentive received by the assessee is directly linked with the manufacturing and sale of goods and therefore income derived from the industrial undertaking and consequently is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. See M/s. Diamond Tool Industries Vs. JCIT [2011 (12) TMI 534 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 322, 323 & 324/PNJ/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - N. S. Saini, AM And George Mathan, JM For the Petitioner : Shri Lorence J Malekar, CA For the Respondent : Shri B Balakrishna, DR ORDER Per N. S. Saini, Accountant Member These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the consolidated order of the ld. CIT (A), Panaji, dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Hence, the assessee is claiming that reimbursement of expenses are not covered within the ambit of sec. 194C of the Act as the parties to the contract for the actual expenses paid are the party who is receiving the reimbursement and the party who rendered service to that party. It was further submitted that service charges paid to the clearing and forwarding agents for the services rendered by them on principal to principal basis and not on reimbursements. 4. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and the Assessing Officer held that as per the amended provisions of sec. 194C, the clearing and forwarding agents come within the purview of service contractors/transport contractors and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.Y. 2011-12 were not reimbursement of expenses paid by the clearing and forwarding agents for freight to the airlines. In the absence of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Ground No.2 of the appeal in all the years under consideration is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,74,540/- for the A.Y. 2009-10, ₹ 4,74,540/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and ₹ 4,74,540/- for A.Y.2011-12 on account of Goa VAT incentive by disallowing deduction u/s. 80IB to the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee received incentive of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, pursued the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (supra) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) has held that Central Excise Duty has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and similarly the refund of the Central Excise duty also had a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. The issue of payment of Central Excise Duty would not arise in the absence of any industrial activity. It was, accordingly, held that the refund of excise duty has to be taken into account for purposes of section 80-IB. Following the ratio of the said deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness of the undertaking. However, as can be seen from the facts brought on record, there is no dispute that assessee has paid the excise duty on the goods manufactured and sold and as such it forms part of the sale price of assessee. Therefore, payment of central excise duty is integrally connected with the manufacturing and sale of goods produced by assessee. It is also not in dispute that as per the industrial policy resolution declared for the state of J K and consequent to Central Excise Department Notification, assessee became eligible for refund of excise duty paid after set off of CENVAT credit. Therefore, in sum and substance, it is only a refund of an amount already paid by assessee and reduced from the sale price while computin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
