9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the amount paid as entrance fee was deductible. In view of the said decision, we find that the question raised is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. Nature of receipt - subsidy in the form of Sales Tax Exemption as 'capital receipt' or 'revenue receipt - Held that:- When one High Court has examined the scheme and in the case of this very assessee held that, the sales tax waiver benefits were in the nature of capital receipts, no further question of law would arise Addition u/s. 145A - difference between the closing balance and the opening balance of CENVAT credit - Held that:- The Tribunal by the impugned judgment while rejecting Revenue's appeal and confirming the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,11,32,910/made u/s. 145A of the Income tax Act, 1961 being difference between the closing balance and the opening balance of CENVAT credit? (d) Without prejudice to above question, following question may also arise Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that, corresponding deduction is to be granted u/s. 37(1) of the Act and not u/s. 43B? 2. In so far as Question (a) is concerned, it arises out of the assessee's objection to a deduction towards contribution made by assessee to various clubs meant for the staff and their family members. The Assessing Officer sought to press in service subsection 9 of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. We have also gone through the decisions cited before us. The Tribunal has followed its own decision in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., and held in favour of the assessee. This Court in the case of Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd., (supra) has held that payment of surtax was not an allowable deduction and that by paying the entrance fee to the sports club the assessee had no intention to acquire any capital asset or take advantage for the enduring benefit of the business and that by common sense standards, it could be stated that it was for running the business or for bettering the conduct of its business and therefore, the amount paid as en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisions of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 226 of 2010, Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2008, Sarabhai M. Chemicals (P) Ltd., (supra) . Learned advocate for the revenue is not in a position to convert the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the questions of law posed for our consideration in these appeals are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 7. Previously, when this Appeal was taken up for hearing, Counsel for the Respondent had pointed out this fact. The validity of his contention would depend on the question whether the subsidy scheme examined by the Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid decision was same as considered in the present case by the Tribunal. The learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
