Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Hari Kripa Perfumes Pvt. Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT JAMMU ITA no. 171/2012c/wITA nos. 172/2012, 174/2012, 176/2012 &177/2012| Date of order: 19.11.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax V. M/s Hari Kripa Perfumes Pvt. Ltd. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Chief JusticeHon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge Appearing counsel: For the applicant(s)/appellant(sMr. D. 8S. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with|Mr. K. D. 8S. Kotwal, Advocate. | For the non-applicant(s) /respondent(s): 1))Whether approved for reportingYes/No)in Press / Medi2)|Whether to be reported inYes/NoD14estAJournal M. M. Kumar, Cu 1.|These appeals by the Revenue filed under|Section 260O-A of the Income Tax Act are directedagainst the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,AmritsarBench|inrespect.ot.the.assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010. In allthese appeals, the issue raised is whether theassessment is to be made on the basis that refund ofexcise duty claimed by the Assessee in view of Section80-IB of the Income Jax Act should be treated as“Revenue Receipt’ or “Capital Receipt’. In ITA no. 169/2012, this Court has already taken the view thatit must be regarded as “Capital Receipt’ in view of thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/sShree Balajt Alloys v. CIT and anr. (2011) 333)ITR 335 (J&K). 2 |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. 169/2012.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 lawwarranting admission of the appeal would arise. 3The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. | (Mohammad Yagoob Mir) (M. M. Kumar).Judge Chief Justice Jammu, 19.11.2012Parshant