Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Chatta...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Chattan Cement Industries

High Court 13 Dec 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jammuhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Chattan Cement Industries
Date of order
13 Dec 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Chattan Cement Industries, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.

Issue: Kotwal, Advocate. | For the non-applicant(s) /respondent(s): 1))Whether approved for reportingYes/No)in Press/Media2)|Whether to be reported inYes/NoD1.est/Journal M.

Decision: 4The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. | 5.|A copy of this order be placed on each file. | (Hasnain Massod1) (M.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT JAMMU ITA no. 188/2012 Date of order: 13.12.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax V. M/s Chattan Cement Industries Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Chief JusticeHon’ble Mr. Justice Hasnain Masodi, Judge Appearing counsel: For the applicant(s)/appellant(sMr. D. 8. Thakur, Sr. Advocate withMr. K. D. 8S. Kotwal, Advocate. | For the non-applicant(s) /respondent(s): 1))Whether approved for reportingYes/No)in Press/Media2)|Whether to be reported inYes/NoD1.est/Journal M. M. Kumar, Cu 1.|These four* appeals by the Revenue filed under|Section JOO-A ot the [Income Jax Act are directedagainst the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Amritsar|Bench1nrespect.Ot|theassessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2009-2010. In all these appeals, the issue raised is whetherthe assessment is to be made on the basis that refundof excise duty claimed by the Assessee in view ofSection 8O-IB of the Income Tax Act should be treatedas “Revenue Receipt’ or “Capital Receipt’. 2 |In ITA no. 169/2012, this Court has already|taken the view that it must be regarded as “CapitalReceipt’ in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT and anr. (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K). 3.Mr. Thakur, learned senior counsel for the)Revenue has not been able to successfully distinguishthe issues raised in the instant appeals and the onewhich has already been decided in ITA no. 1609/2012.The matter is squarely covered against the revenue bythe Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/sohree Balaji Alloys’ case (Supra) and the subsequentDivision Bench order passed on 12.11.2012 in ITA no.1609/2012. Therefore, no substantive question of lawwatranting admission of the appeal would arise. 4The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. | 5.|A copy of this order be placed on each file. | (Hasnain Massod1) (M. M. Kumar)Judge Chief Justice Jammu,13.12.2012Parshant .S,NO.TsC|ed1.|Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Chattan Cement IndustriesITA 188/2Ol2>Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Kanchan Soap and DetergentsITA 189[2OlpOo.Commissioner of Income Tax v. R. F. Prefab IndustryITA 190|2012|4Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s K. S. ProfilesITA 191[2Olp (Hasnain Massod1) (M. M. Kumar)Judge Chief Justice Jammu,13.12.2012Parshant
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan