9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the sales tax exemption scheme as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.[2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] correctly held to be as capital receipt. We are of the opinion that the impugned order of the ITAT does not disclose any infirmity. No substantial question of law arises. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocal industry. The AO was of the opinion that the amount had to be treated as revenue receipt. The assessee's appeal likewise was unsuccessful. The CIT(A), after considering the nature of the scheme and various decisions, including the one rendered by the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT 1997 (228) ITR 253, confirmed the order of the AO. The ITAT reversed these concurrent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the Supreme Court subsequently remitted the matter to the High Court which in turn confirmed its previous opinion and required consideration of the matter by the State Government, the Revenue urges that in the present case, the sales tax subsidy independently too cannot be treated as capital receipt but should be brought to tax as proposed by the AO. Learned counsel heavily relied upon Sahney ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue. This Court too had the occasion to deal with the issues in CIT v. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 586/2013, decided on 30.01.2015) where the decision in Ponni Sugars (supra) and previous authorities were discussed and applied in given facts of the case. We are of the opinion that the impugned order of the ITAT does not disclose any infirmity. No substantial ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
