TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Karunakar Rao And Amit Shukla, JJ. Revenue by Shri Vivekand Parampurna Assessee by None ORDER Amit Shukla, This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order 12.3.2012, passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Only ground raised by the revenue reads as under : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in Holding entertainment duty collected by the assessee as capital receipt relying on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay Court in the case of CIT V/s Chapahalkar Brothers without appreciating that the department has not accepted the said decision and has filed an SLP which is pending before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d decision observed and held as under : 3. I have perused the assessment order and written submissions of the appellant. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Chaphalkar Brothers (ITXANo.1036 of 2010 dated 08.06.2011) considered the issue of subsidy of entertainment tax by Government of Maharashtra. It was held that: a subsidy is a capital receipt when it is for the promotion of a new industry, while it is a revenue receipt liable to tax if it is granted to supplement the profits of an industry, (i) the subsidy granted by the State of Maharashtra, is or the promotion of multiplexes, (ii) the subsidy was granted in the form of a concession on entertainment duty, (iii) that the object behind the subsidy was to promote constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was on capital account. 3.3.2. The Hon ble Bombay High Court held that the ratio of Ponni Sugars was that only the object of the subsidy scheme must be considered and on the facts of the case, the subsidy was introduced with the object of promoting the construction of multiplexes; and the point of time in which it could be availed - the form in which it was granted was not relevant. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held:- The fact that the subsidy was not meant for repaying the loan taken for construction of multiplexes cannot be a ground to hold that subsidy receipt was on revenue account, because, if the object of the schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
