Supreme Court Of India
CIT, Central-4, Mumbai vs. Nitco Tiles Ltd.
Section 4
A.K. Sikri And Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 4831 Of 2017
April  3, 2017Â
ORDER
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 Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2004] 88 ITD 273 (Mum.) (SB) 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 Ltd. case (supra), 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 v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), 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 Hon’ble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is a Capital Receipt?”
6. Since the judgment in Reliance Industries Ltd. case (supra) was relied upon, and in that case, the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, following the aforesaid course of action, we allow this appeal as well. On the aforesaid question, as formulated, the High Court shall admit the appeal and decide the same on merits.
[Citation : 395 ITR 519]
