9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. It would, therefore, be in interest of justice that the remit of the A.O should be on the wider question as to the assessee’s contention that whether the subsidy amounts received are in fact capital in nature; the CIT(A) order shall not be therefore construed as prejudicial or conclusive in the matter. The A.O will consequently pass a fresh order based upon his independent analysis as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tune of 75% of the gross fixed capital investment. It contended that the sum of ` 49,38,00,503/- received thus from the Government of Maharashtra was capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The A.O accepted this treatment without discussion and allowed the assesee to treat the amounts received as capital in nature. The CIT exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties. The A.O s order hardly contains any view. Learned counsel for the assessee had relied upon a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV v. DLF Ltd. (2013) 31 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi) to say that a debatable question is per se incapable of revision under Section 263(1) of the Act. This Court is cognizant of the ruling in DLF Ltd. (supra) ; in issue was a disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, in our opinion, was not justified. The question as to the debatability of any issue can arise only if reasons are apparent. Having concluded thus, at the same time, this Court is conscious that the CIT has rendered an elaborate finding as to why the amounts could not be treated as capital. The ITAT applied its own analysis and set aside the determination. It would, therefore, be in interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
