M/S Indian Acrylics Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another

Income Tax Appeal No.406 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income Tax Appeal No.406 of 2008 Date of Order: 06.01.2015 M/s Indian Acrylics Ltd. ..Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA Present:Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate,for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate,for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The assessee is before us, challenging order dated29.11.2007 (Annexure A-3), passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B”. Chandigarh, for assessment year2003-04, on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, theaction of the authorities below in holding the Saletax subsidy received by the appellant as a revenuereceipt, when the same has been rightly held to fallunder the capital receipt as laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.P. Ltd.v. CIT(2000)245 ITR 421(SC)is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the authorities below were correct in holding thatmerely because the subsidy was granted after thecommencement of production became a revenuereceipt is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?the authorities below were correct in holding thatmerely because the subsidy was granted after thecommencement of production became a revenuereceipt is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iii) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, theaction of the authorities below in acting on its ownpresumption without any legal basis and ignoringthe various judicial precedents as laid down by thecompany is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?action of the authorities below in acting on its ownpresumption without any legal basis and ignoringthe various judicial precedents as laid down by thecompany is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iv) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, theaction of the authorities below, the impugned ordersAnnexure A-1 and A-3 are legally sustainable in theeyes of law?”action of the authorities below, the impugned ordersAnnexure A-1 and A-3 are legally sustainable in theeyes of law?” Counsel for the parties are ad-idem that in view of orderdated 18.12.2014, passed in Income Tax Appeal No.146 of 2014(M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd.v. Commissioner of Income Tax,Ludhiana and another), the matter has to be remitted to theTribunal. We have heard counsel for the parties, considered thesubstantial questions of law, the judgement dated 18.12.2014 inM/s been remitted to the Tribunal in M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd.,(supra), allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated29.11.2007 and remit the matter to the Tribunal, for adjudicationafresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, on 20.01.2015. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE January 06, 2015nt (B.S.WALIA) JUDGE