9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated December 29, 2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The following effective grounds are raised in the appeal: (1) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding that the central excise receipt of Rs. 21,43,75,720/-, sales tax incentives of Rs. 15,57,50,005/- and the VAT on pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion relying upon the decision of the appeal in ITA No. 793/Rjt/2010 dated 23.09.2010 in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2006- 07 wherein the Hon ble ITAT erred in relying the decision of the Spl. Bench of ITAT in the case of DECIT V.Reliance Industries Ltd-88 ITD 273 ignoring the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Sahaney Steel Press Works Ltd V. CIT-228 ITR 253 SC without exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that in the return of income the assessee has not made the claim that excise receipt of Rs. 21,43,75,720; salestax incentive of Rs. 15,57,50,005 and VAT of purchase of Rs. 1,42,75,720 granted by the State Government is capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in entertaining the said claim. He further pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) erred in rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the revenue and then came to the conclusion that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd (supra) is not applicable to the facts of assessee s case as well as that the judgment of Sahaney Steel Press Works Ltd V. CIT-228 ITR 253 (SC) has also been duly considered. He accordingly submitted that all the grounds now raised in this appeal are squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs by way of letter. After considering both the judgments, viz. Goetze India Ltd (supra) and Sahaney Steel Press Works Ltd V. CIT (supra) the Tribunal held that these receipts are of capital in nature In the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has merely followed this order. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) is confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
