TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantial question of law arises on the said issue. Incentive subsidy - Held that:- It was meant for entrepreneurs and industrialists who had established their units and made certain capital outlay and the assessee was merely required to ensure distribution of subsidies to the industrialists and thus it could not be treated as funds in hand of the assessee as taxable. - Miscellaneous Appeal No. 698 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2016 - Ramesh Kumar Datta And Sudhir Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Archana Shahi For the Respondent : Ajay Rastogi, Rajeev Ranjan Pd., Nilanjan Chatterjee, Parijat Sourav JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue and learned counsel for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held by the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts respectively in the case of CIT v. Delhi State Industrial Development [2007] 295 ITR 419 (Delhi) and CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation [2006] 284 ITR 582 (Karn). 5. The Commissioner of Income-tax has also accepted the stand of the assessee that the Assessing Officer had misunderstood the nature of incentives and subsidies and presumed the same as having been given to the assessee, whereas the same were merely given to the assessee for passing on to the entrepreneurs and units who are entitled to such incentive and subsidy under the various schemes of the Government, such as, Vidyut Anudan, Generator sets, etc. and the assessee was not the beneficiary o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of tax upon the interest of ₹ 4,01,363 and ₹ 33,84,159 is concerned, learned counsel has reiterated the submissions made before the court below. 9. In the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (supra), it has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that once it has been found at the level of Tribunal that the interest was income derived out of funds received from the State Government and thus the interest was not taxable as having the same character, that would be a question of fact. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Karnataka High Court and thus no substantial question of law arises on the said issue. 10. Same wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
