9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) dated 3/11/2022 four assessment year 2009 - 10 raising following grounds of appeal:- Revenue's Ground of appeal in ITA No. 84/Mum/2023:- ""1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of interest subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme of Rs. 8,34,26,992/- without appreciating that the department had not accepted the ITAT decision in earlier years and further appeal was filed in A.Y.2010-11, ITXA NO. 1785/2022. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee on account of interest subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) erred in not admitting the ground of appeal and ought to have directed the learned AO to exclude incentives under Focus Market Scheme of Rs. 13,16,569/-, being a capital receipt, from Profit as shown in the statement of profit and loss, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 03. Facts of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged in diverse the business such as garments, insulators, fertilisers, viz cost element young, financial services et cetera at a different units located across the country. It filed its return of income on 29/9/2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,025,938,044/- as per name of provisions of the income tax act 1961 (the act) and book profit of Rs. 1,623,088,137/- under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A as per ground number 2, after considering the submission of the assessee found that coordinate bench in ITA number 4220 and 4704/M/2015 dated 24/2/2020 in assessee's own case has held that subsidy received by the appellant company under technology upgradation fund scheme is a capital receipt. This decision was arrived at by the coordinate bench after relying on the decision of honourable Rajasthan High Court in case of principal Commissioner of income tax versus Nitin spinners Ltd and of honourable Calcutta High Court in case of CIT versus Gloucester jute Mills Ltd. The learned AO is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT - A and therefore has challenged this decision of the learned CIT - A as per ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in 228 ITR 253 and submitted that the nature of subsidy clearly appears to be of revenue in nature. The learned departmental representative also pressed into service the explanation 10 of section 43 (1) of the act. 05. The learned authorised representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 4220/M/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 dated 24/2/2020 in case of the assessee and in ITA number 6360 and 6361 for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 by order dated 10/9/2020 in case of orbit exports Ltd. This decision has been rendered by following the decision of the honourable Rajasthan High Court as well as honourable Calcutta High Court. Further with res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been held that the subsidy received by the appellant company under technology upgradation fund scheme is capital receipt. The coordinate bench held as under:- "8. Ground No. 11: 11. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in directing to treat the interest subsidy of Rs. 15,23,25,727/- as capital in nature." 38.1 In ground No.11 the Revenue has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in holding interest subsidy from Technology Up gradation Fund(TUF) Rs. 15,23,25,727/- as capital in nature. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Spinners Ltd. in DB Income Tax appeal No.31/2019 decided on 19/09/2019 has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under TUF scheme as capital in nature. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd.(supra). Thus, in view of above judgements of Hon'ble High Courts, we see no infirmity in the findings of CIT(A). The same are upheld and ground No.11 of the appeal is dismissed. 41. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose." 07. Therefore in view of the above decision of the coordinate bench the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that interest subsidy received under technology upgradation fund scheme, though credited in the net off against the interest expenditure in the books of account is still capital in natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
