On appellate Tribunal held that the limitation of power of the assessing authority (where the claim is not pressed through a return filed by the assesse) was not applicable to an appellate authority. The Tribunal further held that where a legal issue was raised for the first time before the appellate authority with facts being on record, the additional ground ought to have been admitted. Accordingly, relying on the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (FB) (Bom.)(HC), the Tribunal held that the additional ground was to be admitted. On merits, the Tribunal held that the benefit/incentive was given for the overall development of the industry and the economy of the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys. v. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K)(HC) the Tribunal held that the same ought to be treated the same as capital receipt.(AY. 2006-07)
Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. DCIT (2018) 195 TTJ 125 / 169 DTR 137 (Asr.)(Trib.)
S. 4 : Charge of income tax–Capital or revenue-Subsidy-Additional Admitted -Excise duty refund and interest subsidy received from Government for setting up of an industry in the backward area was to be treated as a capital receipt. [S.28(i), 254(1)]