TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for A.Y. 2012-13, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for verification and to exclude the subsidy from the ambit of taxation as directed in the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. - M.A. No: 187/AHD/2020 (in ITA No. 2316/Ahd/2018) - - - Dated:- 22-4-2021 - Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The instant Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assesse against the order of ITAT in ITA No. 2316/Ahd/2018 dated 24.11.2020. 2. In the Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear and ₹ 20,39,3447- reduced from capital work in progress should instead be treated as capital receipt in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys reported in 80 taxmann.com 239 which is duly applicable on facts of appellant's case. 1.3 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in stating that decisions relied by appellant for reducing interest subsidy from taxable income are not applicable to its case. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys reported in 80 taxmann.com 239 is on similar facts and is duly applicable in case of appellant. Similarly, the decision r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the decision is discussed as under: 21.4 A legal issue also cropped up in the course of hearing as to whether additional ground could be raised in a cross objection filed by the assessee under s.253(4) of the Act. On being enquired on this aspect of the matter, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that there is no perceptible distinction between the position of law qua cross objection in the matter of filing additional ground. It was submitted that a cross objection has all the trappings of a regular appeal more so in the light of language employed under s.253(4) of the Act. 21.5 We find ourselves in agreement with the propositions made on behalf of the assessee that in a cross objection, there is no bar to raise legal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the revision in the claim of depreciation concerning AY 2012-13. By that time, the order of the CIT(A) dated 13.12.2013 was already passed. Therefore, the assessee was incapacitated to put forward such new claim towards depreciation on goodwill amounting to ₹ 5,57,63,315/- for which relevant facts are duly available on record in the light of the decision of Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 22. In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 11.2 Having admitted the additional ground for adjudication as noted above we now turn to the relevant facts touching the issue. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the interest subsidy aggregating to ₹ 2,16,45,161/- as reduced from the interest costs. Our attention was also adverted to Notes to the Financial Statement wherein suitable disclosure was made towards claim of interest subsidy. 11.5 In the circumstances, it is the case of the assessee that where such subsidy is intended and bestowed not with the object of running the business but with a solemn object of attracting industrial investment or expansion, such interest subsidy is in the nature of capital receipt and therefore cannot be reduced from the interest costs. It is thus contended that such capital receipt is not chargeable to tax in the relevant AY 2012-13 in question being a capital receipt. 12. We find that the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The aforesaid amendment has thus come into force w.e.f. AY 2016-17 which reinforces the impression of such capital receipt being out of tax net for the assessment year in question. 14. Thus, on first principles, we find ourselves in total agreement with the contentions on behalf of the assessee for non chargeability of such capital receipts regardless of its treatment in books as revenue receipts. We are however conscious in same vain that the issue has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The Revenue authorities had no occasion to look int o the relevant facts. We accordingly consider it expedient to rest ore the issue to the file of the AO for verification of relevant factual aspects towa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
