Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1486 - AT - Income TaxPackage Scheme of Incentives, 2007 - asseessee is granted subsidy towards meeting a cost of asset - “direct” link to the investment in fixed assets by the eligible unit - Whether there is a link between subsidy given and the cost of investment? - whether the amount of subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra shall go to reduce the actual costs of assets u/s 43(1) for the purpose of allowing the depreciation u/s 32 ? - HELD THAT:- No doubt, the subsidy was granted in terms of the certain percentage of fixed assets to be disbursed in the form of refund of octroi, electricity duty exemption, entry tax refund, VAT etc. over a period of 8 years. Then the next question, that arises for consideration in such circumstances is that, can be it said that subsidy is granted to meet the cost of the actual fixed assets, merely because the amount of subsidy is calculated in term of certain percentage of investment in fixed assets. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the identical issue in the case of CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd [1994 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]. As regards to the applicability of Proviso to Explanation 10 to section 43(1) which was inserted in the Statute w.e.f. 1.4.1999 by the Finance Bill (2) of 1998, the Proviso take cares of situation where such subsidy, grant or reimbursement is such nature that subsidy, grant or reimbursement cannot be directly relatable to the assets acquired by an assessee. In such a situation, the Proviso envisages that so much of amount which bears to the total subsidy, reimbursement or grant, the proportion as such assets bears to all the assets in respect of or with reference to which subsidy or grant is so received shall be deducted in the actual cost of the asset of the assessee. Thus, the proviso envisages adjustment of subsidy in the assets of the assessee. We hold that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost u/s 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation and the provisions to Explanation 10 to section 43(1) have no application to the facts of the present case. We are forfeited in taking this view by the decision of Welspun Steel Ltd [2019 (3) TMI 397 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]This decision being that of Jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. Accordingly, ground of appeal no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. Whether amount of capital subsidy received should be held as “revenue in nature”? - We find that this ground of appeal no.4 does not arise out of the assessment order neither does arise out of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Further, it is only from the assessment year 2016-17 by enacting the provisions of sub-clause (xviii) to section 2(24) of the Act, the amount of subsidy which is not reduced from the actual cost and is made taxable. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Alkoplus Producers Pvt. Ltd [2019 (4) TMI 558 - ITAT PUNE] if a subsidy is given to attract industrial investment or expansion, which is a otherwise a capital receipt under the pre-amendment era, shall be treated as income chargeable to tax, except where it has been taken into account for determining the actual cost of assets in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1). This amendment is patently prospective. As the assessment year under consideration is 2011-12 and the amendment is effective from assessment year 2016-17, new hold that section 2(24) (xviii) will have no application We do not find merit in this ground of appeal no.4 raised by the Revenue and the same stands dismissed.
|