9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following questions:- [A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 5,76,41,612/- on account of interest payment of Govt. to Gujarat? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal was jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered that the assessee was receiving subsidy from the Government. Such subsidy was worked out taking into account the interest component also. Justification for including interest component was presented before the Tribunal in the form of paper book. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that it would be incorrect to hold that on one hand the assessee paid interest towards borrowed funds and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suing items such as food grains for citizens, particularly, below poverty line. In course of such transactions, the assessee received certain subsidies from the Government, which also took into account the interest component on the amounts loaned between the parties. When the Income-Tax Authority as well as the Tribunal have concurrently found that looking to such complex and peculiar nature of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious NGOs. 7. We are broadly in agreement with the logic adopted by the Tribunal. It cannot be stated that the margin of excess price of the cement bags was the income of the assessee and it is not in dispute that the assessee was not in the business of buying and selling cement. We find no fault with the logic adopted by the Tribunal. We find that no substantial question of law is arising. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
