Case: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-4, MUMBAI Vs. M/S. NITCO TILES LIMITED

1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally.3. We notice from the impugned judgment of the High Court that the Income Tax Department had raised five questions, as substantial questions of law, for determination by the High Court. The High Court has, however, admitted the appeal only in respect of Question No.4.4. In so far as Question Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are concerned, the High Court noted that these questions were considered in its earlier decision titled as DCIT versus Reliance Industries in ITA No. 4045/M/91 against the revenue and, therefore, there is no need to admit the appeal on those questions.5. We find that against the judgment of the High Court in Reliance Industries case, the Department has preferred the special leave petition, which was granted and ultimately appeal was allowed by this Court, vide its judgment dated 2nd December, 2011 titled as CIT versus Reliance Industries Limited, remitting the case back to the High Court on the ground that the appeal of the Department was dismissed without considering the following question :-?Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Honble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is a Capital Receipt??

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. We find that against the judgment of the High Court in Reliance Industries case, the Department has preferred the special leave petition, which was granted and ultimately appeal was allowed by this Court, vide its judgment dated 2nd December, 2011 titled as CIT versus Reliance Industries Limited, remitting the case back to the High Court on the ground that the appeal of the Department was dismissed without considering the following question :-?Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Honble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is a Capital Receipt??