D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI V. HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4474/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75741 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P K PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYESH DESAI
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI B R MITTAL, JM & SHRI B R BASKARAN , AM ./I.T.A. NO.4474/MUM/2012 ( ' ' ' ' ' '' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2),MUMBAI / VS. HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD WORLD TRADE CENTRE CENTRE NO.1 10 TH FLOOR CUFFEE PARADE - COLABA MUMBAI 400 005I ./PAN : AAACH2831H ( % /APPELLANT ) ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) % ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B P K PANDE &'% ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAYESH DESAI ( + /DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2014 ( + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :28 TH FEB 2014 / O R D E R PER B R BASKARAN, AM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2012 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)- 8, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE AY 2009-10. 2. THE FOLLOWING THREE ISSUES URGED IN THIS APP EAL: I) WHETHER THE CAPITAL SUBSIDY REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF MACHINERY FOR COMPUTING DEPRECIATION; II) WHETHER THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED AS EXCISE DUTY REIMBU RSEMENT IS A REVENUE RECEIPT & III) WHETHER THE AO WAS RIGHT IN ADDING THE ABOVE SAID T WO ITEMS TO THE BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. ITA 4474/MUM/2012 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AG REED THAT ALL THE ABOVE SAID THREE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.772/M UM/2012 RELATING TO THE AY 2008-09, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.01.2014. 4. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REFERRED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT TH E CAPITAL SUBSIDY IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COST OF PLAND AND MACHINERY ; THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED AS EXCISE DUTY REIMBURSEMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADD THE ABOVE SAID TWO ITEMS TO THE BOO K PROFIT COMPUTED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 5. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS RENDERED HIS DECIS ION ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUES IN CONFIRMITY WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER ON THE ABOVE SAID THREE ISSUES AND A CCORDINGLY CONFIRM THEM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. / ( / ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEB 2014 . ( 28TH, FEB 2014 ( SD/- SD/- ( B R MITTAL ) ( B R BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 6 DATED 28 TH , FEB 2014 . . ./ RAJ , SR. PS ITA 4474/MUM/2012 3 ( (( ( &7 &7 &7 &7 87 87 87 87 /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % / THE APPELLANT 2. &'% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. 7 & , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI