| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
May 11, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Despite Liberty India, Excise Refund Eligible for s. 80IB
Pursuant to a subsidy scheme of the J&K Govt, the assessee paid excise duty and later received it as refund. Deduction u/s 80-IB was claimed in respect of the refund of excise duty. The AO & CIT (A) rejected the claim by relying on Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) where it was held that duty drawback & DEPB were not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB. On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:
In Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC), the Court was concerned with DEPB & Duty Drawback which was an incentive and not with the refund of excise duty paid. The scheme was different. Further, in CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand 317 ITR 353, the Delhi High Court held that excise duty refund was eligible u/s 80-IB on the ground that (a) there was a direct nexus between the refund of excise duty and the undertaking and (b) if the proper accounting methodology was followed for the payment and refund of excise duty, the net effect on the P&L A/c was nil. The department’s appeal against CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand was dismissed (after consideration) by the Supreme Court. This cannot be ignored. Also, the refund of excise duty is the assessee’s own money coming back and is not income at all.
Related Posts:
- JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) If we accept the argument of the learned DR that u/s 154 of the Act, ld. AO is empowered to deal with the escapement of income in respect of which the reasons were not recorded even after the assessment reopened under section 147 of the Act is completed, it would…
- Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by applying the principles from the aforesaid decision and legislative intent behind insertion of section 56(2)(viib), I hold that addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold…
- Muradul Haque vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench…
- Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The contention of the assessee that he has purchased the shares through banking channel and as such, when the purchase is genuine then sale cannot be questioned, is not tenable because the entire transaction of sale and purchase is to be seen in entirety in the light of the attending…
- Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl CIT (ITAT Delhi) The department, which is State, can be permitted to selectively apply the standards set by themselves for their own conduct. If this type of deviation is permitted, the consequences will be that floodgate of corruption will be opened which it is not desirable to encourage. When the department has set…
- Agson Global Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the A.O. to prove that money routed from the assessee itself which came back to the assessee in the form of share capital/premium, therefore, assessee proved identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and as such have…
Leave a Reply