Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)H.M. Steels Ltd., Sangrur vs Acit, Sangrur on 5 November, 2018
That the amount VAT Deferment of Rs.16,96,924/- may be excluded while
computing book profits u/s 115JB as being the capital receipt and not iable to
tax in view of the proposition laid down in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors.
Acit, Sonepat vs Ch. Devi Lal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd., ... on 23 August, 2017
18. In the additional ground, the assessee has claimed that since the subsidy on
account of VAT deferment is as capital receipt, the same is not liable to be taxed
taking into considering while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. He in
this respect has relied upon the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in
the case of 'ACIT Vs. L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd and Anr" in ITA Nos. 339, 417 &
418/LKW/2013, 518 & 53/LKW/569 & CO No. 26 & 27/LKW/2013 order dated
l9.2.2016. The relevant issue has been discussed in para 50 of the said order,
which is reproduced for the sake of convenience.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. on 4 August, 2006
3. The facts relating to the case are that from the Notes on Accounts of the
assessee company, the A.O. noted that it had been granted exemption on sales
tax under the Punjab Industrial Policies, 1989 & 1996. Under this the assessee
company was given sales tax exemption on account of enhancing
modernization of units and furthering industrial growth in the State and as per the
scheme the sales tax was deemed to have been paid. The A.O., however, noted
that in the computation of taxable income of the assessee, the assessee had
reduced its taxable profits by claiming a deduction of Rs.1,84,45,151/- on
account of notional sales tax liability arising out of such subsidy, by treating the
same as capital receipt instead of revenue receipt. The assessee was asked to
justify the same. In response to which, the assessee filed a detailed reply
elaborating the scheme of the Punjab Government as per which the subsidy was
received and stating that since it was granted the exemption under the Industrial
Policy & Incentive Scheme, 1996 of the Government of Punjab, with a view to
promote growth of industry in the State and to push and support for consolidation
and expansion of existing industries, the nature of subsidy was capital and thus
not taxable in the hands of the assessee. The A.O. rejected the contention of the
assessee and noted that identical issue had been decided by the Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1,
holding the subsidy to be revenue in nature. Following the said decision and
5
noting the fact that it was a post production subsidy, the A.O. treated the subsidy
as revenue in nature and added the same in the income of the assessee.
Dcit 5(2), Mumbai vs London Star Diamond Co. India P.Ltd, ... on 7 November, 2016
The Tribunal in this case also
considered two another Tribunal's orders rendered in the case of DCIT Vs.
Bombay Diamond Company Ltd. 33 DTR 59 and Syndicate Bank Vs. ACIT, 7 SOT
51 Bangalore where it was held by the Tribunal after considering the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (Supra), and after
28 explaining the same that adjustment to profit and loss account is possible to
make it compliant with Schedule VI Part II and Part III of the Companies Act, 1956
which is prerequisite of Section 115JB of the Act.
Syndicate Bank, Patna vs Acit, Tds Circle, Patna on 8 March, 2018
The Tribunal in this case also
considered two another Tribunal's orders rendered in the case of DCIT Vs.
Bombay Diamond Company Ltd. 33 DTR 59 and Syndicate Bank Vs. ACIT, 7 SOT
51 Bangalore where it was held by the Tribunal after considering the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (Supra), and after
28 explaining the same that adjustment to profit and loss account is possible to
make it compliant with Schedule VI Part II and Part III of the Companies Act, 1956
which is prerequisite of Section 115JB of the Act.
Rain Cii Carbon (India) Limited, ... vs Dcit, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad on 26 April, 2017
((Supra) and thereafter, it was noted by the Tribunal in this case that as per the
7
decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Rain
Commodities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 41 DTR 449, if profit and loss account is not in
accordance with Part II & Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956
because it is prerequisite for Section 115JB of the Act.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Vardhman Industires Ltd. on 9 January, 2018
19. Since in the light of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has
already been held that the subsidy on account of VAT deferment is a capital
receipt, hence, in the light of the above decision of the Tribunal, the same need
to be excluded from the profits as per the profit and loss account of the present
year while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. This additional ground
of the assessee, is therefore, allowed.
1