GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 117 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (2) TMI 117 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Addition on account of Capital Subsidy u/s. 41(1) - revenue or capital in nature - Held that:- Admittedly, in the case in hand, the capital subsidy, as it is named in the notification of the scheme dated 12.03.1998 of the Government of Maharashtra, has been granted as an incentive to promote and encourage the installation of wind mill for generation of electricity. The said subsidy being provided to the assessee to encourage the setting up of wind mill to p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t or for the purpose of acquisition of asset. The precondition is that the assessee must install a wind power project and that the wind power plant must be successfully operated with a minimum 12% plant load factor for at least one year. Admittedly, the assessee had installed the project in the financial year i.e. 2001-02. The assessee after successfully operating the plant with a minimum 12% plant load factor for one year had applied for capital subsidy vide letter dated 31.03.03, which subject .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onal sources. Hence, the grant of subsidy in this case is of such a nature that it cannot be directly relatable to the asset acquire.

So far as the contention of the AO that the subsidy is liable to be taxed under section 50 of the Act is concerned, we find that in this case neither there was a transfer of any asset from the block nor did the block has ceased to exist. It is not a case of capital gains by way of transfer but it is only a case of capital receipt as observed above as an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

venue by : Shri Santosh Mankoskar, D.R. ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.02.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: A) Addition on account of Capital Subsidy - ₹ 10,00,000/- 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Mumbai [CIT(A)] erred on facts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

subsidy received of ₹ 10,00,000/- was a capital receipt and was not liable to tax. B) General 4) The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the financial year 2001-02 the assessee had installed wind energy project at a cost of ₹ 1189.87 lakhs. As per the policy of Maharashtra Government, to promote generation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as granted to the assessee during the relevant financial year 2007-08 at ₹ 20 lakh. During the subsequent year i.e. F.Y. 2008-09, assessee had to refund back subsidy to the extent of ₹ 10 lakhs. 4. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) observed that the assessee had already claimed 100% depreciation on the windmill, and as such the subsidy was required to be reduced from the cost of asset and hence the assessee had received a benefit of ₹ 10 lakh. He accordi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee has come in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought our attention to the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 632 (Bom.) wherein the Hon ble Bombay High Court, while relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ectricity. The said subsidy being provided to the assessee to encourage the setting up of wind mill to promote generation of energy through non conventional sources, thus, is to be treated as capital receipt. 8. So far as the applicability of the section 41(1) is concerned, it relates to the benefit derived by an assessee in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability and not in respect of capital receipts. So far as the Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) is concerned, we find that as per the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

actor for one year had applied for capital subsidy vide letter dated 31.03.03, which subject to fulfillment of certain conditions were ultimately released to the applicant during the financial year i.e. 2007-08 at ₹ 20 lakhs. However, out of the said amount of ₹ 20 lakh, ₹ 10 lakh had to be returned back by the assessee to the government. So the mere acquisition of the asset was not sufficient to claim subsidy. The subsidy was not given for the purpose of acquisition of the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the financial year i.e. 2007-08 on achieving more than 12% plant load factor. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee had to pay back half of the amount of subsidy because of non fulfillment of certain conditions. Under such circumstances the proviso to explanation 10 to section 43(1), is applicable to the case in hand. The co-ordinate Kolkata bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. (2014) 46 taxman.com 214 (Kolkata- Trib.), while relying upon the decision of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see company received incentive subsidy from Govt. of West Bengal under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999 (WBIS) as encouragement for setting up of industrial project. It is also a fact that maximum limit of the subsidy was restricted with reference to the value of fixed capital investments in land, building, plant and machinery but no part of the subsidy was specifically intended to subsidize the cost of any fixed asset, therefore, it cannot he said that the subsidy was to meet a portion of cos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 830/76 Taxman 611 has considered this issue and held that where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure adopted under the scheme to quantify the financial aid, is not a payment, directly or indirectly, to meet any portion of the actual cost. There .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bsidy is intended for meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, then such subsidy should be deducted from the actual cost, for the purpose of computing depreciation. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court, law is that if the subsidy is asset-specific, such subsidy goes to reduce the actual cost. If the subsidy is to encourage setting up of the industry, it does not go to reduce the actual cost, even though the amount of subsidy was quantified on the basis of the percentage of the total investment m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the cost as is relatable to such subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset to the assessee. It is further, provided thereunder, that where such subsidy or grant or reimbursement of such nature that it cannot be directly relatable to the as set acquired, so much of the amount which bear s to the total subsidy or reimbursement or grant the same proportion as such asset bears to all the assets in respect of or with reference to which the subsidy or gran .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version