The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Forconsideration v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Judicial) Dated 2[Nd] May, 2022 Stating That Allthe Appeals Filed By The Appellant Department Are Below The Threshold Limitfixed By

OD-14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/147/2018 IA No:GA/1/2018 (Old No.:GA/1094/2018)GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/1095/2018)PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATAVERSUSM/s. CEMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 10th May, 2022. Appearance:- …for Appellant Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. The Court : We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learnedstanding Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. Respondent hasbeen served but has not entered appearance. There is a delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied withthe reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delaypetition and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Theapplication for condonation of delay being GA/1/2018 (OldNo:GA/1094/2018) is allowed. ITAT/147/2018 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 2[nd] August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench,Kolkata in I.T.A.(SS) A. Nos. 142 to 147/KOL/2016 for the AssessmentYears 2008-09 and 2013 –2014; The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration :- i)Whether on the facts and the circumstance of the case, theLearned Appellate Tribunal, has erred in law while treating theamount of VAT remission as eligible for deduction underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when essentially, itis of the nature of the duty drawback and cannot be calledprofit derived from industrial undertaking and cannot bereckoned in computing deduction under Section 80IC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ?Learned Appellate Tribunal, has erred in law while treating theamount of VAT remission as eligible for deduction underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when essentially, itis of the nature of the duty drawback and cannot be calledprofit derived from industrial undertaking and cannot bereckoned in computing deduction under Section 80IC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal has erred in law in allowing deduction underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on VAT remissionwhich is contrary to law laid down in the case of RiteshIndustrial Ltd. reported in (2005) 274 ITR 324 and also in thecase of CIT Versus H. M. Steels Ltd. reported in [2015] 62Taxmann.com 252 (Punjab & Haryana) ?Learned Tribunal has erred in law in allowing deduction underSection 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on VAT remissionwhich is contrary to law laid down in the case of RiteshIndustrial Ltd. reported in (2005) 274 ITR 324 and also in thecase of CIT Versus H. M. Steels Ltd. reported in [2015] 62Taxmann.com 252 (Punjab & Haryana) ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue. The learned Standing Counsel hasproduced before us the copy of the letter written by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Head Quarter, Central, Kolkata – 11 to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) dated 2[nd] May, 2022 stating that allthe appeals filed by the appellant department are below the threshold limitfixed by the C.B.D.T. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of lowtax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open. Accordingly, the application being GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/1095/2018) also stands dismissed. Affidavit-of-service be kept on record. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)