9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital receipt - Held that:- The grant of land to the Respondent is for setting up a unit with the object of creating employment for 3000 people. In this case, the purpose and object of grant of land admittedly is to generate income and employment for 3000 people. The Apex Court in Chaphalkar Brothers (2017 (12) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT) approved the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011 (1) TMI 394 - Jammu and Kashmir High Court] as held that the incentives given was in the capital field. In fact, even in the earlier decision the Apex Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ) has applied the purpose test to determine the nature of subsidy i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in relying on the decision of an earlier year to hold that data line expenditure is not required to be deducted; whereas the Explanation 2 of Section 10A, defines export turnover to exclude telecommunication charges attributable to the delivery of such articles or things outside India? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that foreign exchange expenditure is to be taken into account for computation of exemption to Section 10A? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the grant of land to the Company was capital; whereas the Assessing Officer had he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. By an order dated 31 October 2013, the DRP upheld the view of Assessing Officer on the above issue, in the directions given under Section 144C(5) of the Act. (c) Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed an Appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal recorded the fact that the grant of allotment of land to the assessee was for the purpose/object of generating income and employment for over 3000 people. The impugned order of the Tribunal while allowing the Appeal of the RespondentAssessee placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ponni Sugars Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392. (d) Mr. Pinto, on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the aforesaid grant of land by the State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
