CIT Vs. KARAIKAL CHLORATES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising the following substantial question of law:

(2.) It is seen from the instructions given in the said circulars, particularly that of the year 2007 where the substantial question of law involved is of recurring nature to be decided by the court, without recourse to the monetary limit, an appeal could be considered on the merits. It is seen that instructions were also issued to that effect in Board's Instruction No. 1979, dated March 27, 2000, was clarified subsequently on June 29, 2000, and again on October 24, 2005.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court as regards the maintainability reported in CIT v. Nanak Ram Jaisinghania, 2009 317 ITR 302. We do not think that the said decision would be of any assistance to the assessee. Admittedly, in the assessee's case for the assessment year on the very same issue as to the character of the power subsidy receipt, figured in as a disputed question before the Tribunal. It held that the power subsidy is a revenue receipt and the same was accepted by the assessee and no further appeal was taken up before this court. Taking note of the abovesaid circumstances, we hold that the appeal is maintainable in this case.