Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2013 (6) TMI 73 - HC - Income Tax


  1. 2017 (12) TMI 816 - SC
  2. 2017 (8) TMI 1336 - HC
  3. 2017 (8) TMI 1411 - HC
  4. 2017 (7) TMI 1171 - HC
  5. 2017 (2) TMI 1363 - HC
  6. 2015 (2) TMI 1169 - HC
  7. 2014 (5) TMI 586 - HC
  8. 2014 (3) TMI 1133 - HC
  9. 2014 (5) TMI 319 - HC
  10. 2013 (2) TMI 353 - HC
  11. 2025 (6) TMI 390 - AT
  12. 2023 (11) TMI 438 - AT
  13. 2023 (9) TMI 473 - AT
  14. 2023 (6) TMI 881 - AT
  15. 2023 (5) TMI 538 - AT
  16. 2023 (11) TMI 533 - AT
  17. 2023 (11) TMI 428 - AT
  18. 2023 (11) TMI 322 - AT
  19. 2023 (2) TMI 1212 - AT
  20. 2023 (2) TMI 1211 - AT
  21. 2022 (11) TMI 1309 - AT
  22. 2022 (11) TMI 531 - AT
  23. 2022 (10) TMI 124 - AT
  24. 2022 (6) TMI 1100 - AT
  25. 2022 (5) TMI 1608 - AT
  26. 2022 (1) TMI 922 - AT
  27. 2021 (2) TMI 1250 - AT
  28. 2021 (2) TMI 862 - AT
  29. 2020 (10) TMI 242 - AT
  30. 2019 (12) TMI 1299 - AT
  31. 2019 (4) TMI 1856 - AT
  32. 2019 (2) TMI 1837 - AT
  33. 2019 (2) TMI 1061 - AT
  34. 2019 (1) TMI 1978 - AT
  35. 2018 (12) TMI 629 - AT
  36. 2018 (10) TMI 1398 - AT
  37. 2018 (9) TMI 1957 - AT
  38. 2018 (7) TMI 2100 - AT
  39. 2018 (5) TMI 341 - AT
  40. 2018 (5) TMI 334 - AT
  41. 2018 (1) TMI 1615 - AT
  42. 2017 (12) TMI 1758 - AT
  43. 2017 (11) TMI 1632 - AT
  44. 2017 (4) TMI 1384 - AT
  45. 2017 (12) TMI 1134 - AT
  46. 2017 (4) TMI 287 - AT
  47. 2017 (4) TMI 44 - AT
  48. 2017 (3) TMI 1807 - AT
  49. 2017 (1) TMI 1198 - AT
  50. 2016 (10) TMI 522 - AT
  51. 2016 (7) TMI 1662 - AT
  52. 2016 (5) TMI 1469 - AT
  53. 2015 (12) TMI 1629 - AT
  54. 2015 (12) TMI 1783 - AT
  55. 2015 (7) TMI 1298 - AT
  56. 2015 (7) TMI 1023 - AT
  57. 2015 (7) TMI 2 - AT
  58. 2015 (1) TMI 1412 - AT
  59. 2014 (8) TMI 839 - AT
  60. 2014 (7) TMI 172 - AT
  61. 2014 (6) TMI 501 - AT
  62. 2014 (1) TMI 1029 - AT
  63. 2013 (12) TMI 139 - AT
  64. 2013 (6) TMI 220 - AT
  65. 2013 (8) TMI 548 - AT
  66. 2014 (9) TMI 255 - AT
Issues:
- Entertainment duty subsidy nature: revenue or capital receipt

Analysis:
The judgment deliberates on whether the entertainment duty subsidy granted to the assessee by the State Government for constructing multiplexes should be categorized as a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The Revenue argues that the subsidy should be considered a revenue receipt based on the precedent set by the apex court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT. However, the court references the judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., which emphasizes that the purpose for which the subsidy is provided is crucial in determining its character. The court highlights that if the subsidy aims to facilitate the establishment of a new unit, then it should be classified as a capital receipt.

In this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the objective behind granting the entertainment duty subsidy was to promote the construction of multiplex theatre complexes. The court underscores that the subsidy was intended to support the capital-intensive nature of these complexes and to encourage the development of new cinema houses. Therefore, regardless of whether the multiplexes were built using internal funds or borrowed capital, the subsidy should be treated as a capital receipt. The court concludes that the subsidy was not intended for loan repayment but to foster the growth of cinema houses through multiplex construction. Consequently, the court upholds the Tribunal's decision that the subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt, leading to the dismissal of both appeals without costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates