9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the State and to generate employment in the State, the fact that the subsidy took a particular form and the fact that it was granted only after commencement of production would make no difference. Identical issue was also considered in Ankit Metal And Power Ltd. [ 2019 (7) TMI 878 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein apart from considering the effect of the subsidy the Court also considered as to whether when a receipt is not in the character of income as defined under Section 2(24) of the Act, whether it can be said to form part of the book profit under Section 115 JB. Decided against revenue. - ITA/18/2021 IA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/515/2018) - - - Dated:- 14-9-2022 - THE HON BLE JUSTICE T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleration of industrial development in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and generation of employment in the said State. Thus considered, it was obvious that the incentives would have to be held capital and not revenue. Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel, pointed out that by an order dated 19.04.2016, this Court stated that the issue raised in those appeals was covered, inter alia, by the judgment in Ponni Sugars, and the appeals were, therefore, dismissed. We have no hesitation in holding that the finding of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the facts of the incentive subsidy contained in that case is absolutely correct. In that once the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the State and to generate employment in the State, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the schemes in question would have to be excluded while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The third issue involved in the instant appeal which requires adjudication is whether the action of the Tribunal entertaining/allowing the claim which was made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised computation instead of filing a revised return since the time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming to treat the incentive subsidies in question as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing Officer had denied this claim. The Revenue has attacked the order of the Tribunal by relying on the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
