9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question has to be answered in favour of the respondent/assessee in the light of the Decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Budge Budge Refineries[ 2022 (2) TMI 533 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] Hence, the said question is not admitted. Subsidy receipt by the assessee can not be deducted from the Written Down Value of the block of asset as per explanation 10 to Section 43(1) - HELD THAT:- Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Birla Corporation Limited [ 2014 (12) TMI 436 - ITAT KOLKATA] for the assessment year 2007-2008. As against the said decision of the learned Tribunal the revenue had filed appeal before this Court [ 2019 (9) TMI 1668 - CALCUTTA HIGH COUR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] Capital receipt due to forfeiture of shares warrants - HELD THAT:- As on perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal we find that there is no factual position held to issue of convertible warrant and subsequent forfeiture were on capital gain ad the amount received was a capital receipt not liable to tax. Further the Tribunal held that there was no material on record to substantiate the allegation of tax evasion as recorded by the assessing officer. Thus we find that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration on the said ground and hence question k is not admitted. Let the appellants file requisite number of informal paper book within a period of eight weeks from date prepared out of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DCIT (2014) 114 DTR 162 (Karnataka), Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Limited Vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi, 117 TTJ 480 (2009), Shyam Lata Kaushik Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi), 2008, 114 ITD 305 ? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to determine the profits and gains of the eligible unit on a reasonable basis under the proviso to Section 80IA(8) of Income Tax Act, 1961? d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact in holding that Sales Tax subsidy and Industrial Promotion Assistance are in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to tax ? e. Whether on the facts and in the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s could be made under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rule, 1962 in respect of those investments only which has produced dividend income excluding strategic investments and no disallowance could be made under the said provisions in respect of investments which has not produced dividend income ? j. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that part of income being retention money of Rs.1,84,26,995/- is not chargeable to tax in the Assessment Year 2010-2011 without considering the fact that obligation under contract and giving of such retention money did not in any manner lead to any uncertainly regarding collectability of revenue n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So far as substantial question of law No. c is concerned, we find that the learned Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration and, therefore, we find that there is no substantial arising under this aspect for consideration. With regard to the substantial question of law No. "d" is concerned, the question has to be answered in favour of the respondent/assessee in the light of the Decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Budge Budge Refineries, 2022 139, taxman.com.124 (Cal). Hence, the said question is not admitted. So far as substantial question No. "e" is concerned, the learned Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the allegation of tax evasion as recorded by the assessing officer. Thus we find that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration on the said ground and hence question k is not admitted. Let the appellants file requisite number of informal paper book within a period of eight weeks from date prepared out of Court by serving advance copies on the respondent. Since the respondent is represented through learned Counsel, service of notice of this appeal on the respondent is waived. Settlement of index and all other formalities are dispensed with. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent/assessee submitted that since this Court has admitted questions h & i, the respondent may be granted to leave to file cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
