M/s. Vivekanand Society of Education and Research Vs CIT (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) Where there are more than one such institutions, which are under a particular society or trust, such as the assessee society in the present case, the aggregate annual receipts of each of the educational institutions would have to be considered separately […]
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer by dis-allowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
A bare look at section 80-IB(4) would reveal that reference made to ‘profits and gains derived from such industrial undertakings’ and not to ‘profit and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking’. A conjoint reading of Section 80-IB(l) and 80-IB(4) would reveal that the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business’ is to be read as ‘profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking’
M/s Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (J&K High Court)- The finding of the Tribunal on the first issue that the Excise Duty Refund, Interest Subsidy and Insurance Subsidy were Production Incentives, hence Revenue Receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars cases (supra). The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were Revenue Receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to be Capital Receipt in the hands of the assesses.
It is settled position of law that appeal is creature of Statute and appeal can be filed only when permitted by Statute and can be filed on the grounds mentioned In the Statute. In terms of section 260-A the High Court gets power to hear and decide an appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved. The section 260-A of the Act of 1961 thus, authorizes the High Court to hear an appeal only when substantial question of law is involved.
