TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment of Net Present Value of deferred sales tax liability, granted under the incentive scheme of State Government of Himachal Pradesh, in respect of its Darlaghat Unit, amounting to Rs. 12,56,20,681/- being capital in nature. 1(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the gain of Rs. 12,56,20,681/- arising on pre-payment of deferred sales tax liability cannot be treated as revenue receipt liable to tax u/s28 (iv). 4. So far as this grievance is concerned, the assessee was allowed deferral of sales tax liability by the Himachal Pradesh Government General Sales Tax (Deferral Payment of Tax) Scheme 20005 under which payment of 75% of sales tax liability was allowed to be deferred for 5 years. Vide a subsequent notification dated 26.7.2005, an option was given to pay 65% of the sales tax liability for any tax period, and upon such payment, the assessee was to be deemed to have paid the entire sales tax dues for such period. In effect, thus, the NPV of the liability was taken as 65% of the sales tax liability. The assessee availed this option, and the 35% (being difference in sales tax liability and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 9. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves to succeed on this ground as well. Vide our orders on the appeals for the two immediately preceding assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07, which were heard along with this set of cross-appeals, we have held that the sales tax subsidy is capital in nature. Going by the stand of the Assessing Officer, the nature of the sales tax subsidy is the same as this subsidy receipt. We thus have no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us for sales tax subsidy for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, we hold that the impugned receipt of Rs 30,00,000 is required to be treated as capital receipt and to be excluded from the total income of the assessee. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 10. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. 11. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirmi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved, and is in appeal before us. 18. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 19. We have noted that the Assessing Officer himself states that he "finds no difference in sales tax and excise exemption claimed", and in the immediately preceding paragraphs in this order, we have held that sales tax exemption receipt is a capital receipt in nature. There cannot be any good reasons to take a different view of the matter in respect to excise exemptions. For this short reason alone, the impugned additions must stand deleted as the related receipts are required to be treated as capital receipts in nature. The observations in the context of the first ground of appeal will apply mutatis mutandis here as well. That apart, once the Assessing Officer himself also accepts that the object and purpose of the excise exemption scheme are to promote the industry is set up, or being subjected to substantial expansion, in the backward areas, it cannot be open to the revenue even to suggest that the object and purpose of the scheme are to promote industries in backward areas. The Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. 7. On further appeal by the Revenue, Supreme Court confirmed the decision of this Court. It was noted that, Maharashtra Government's subsidy was not in form of an exemption from payment of entertainment duty to multiplex theater complex. The scheme was introduced to start new cinema houses in the State. The Supreme Court observed that, in such circumstance, the purpose tests for grant of subsidy should be applied. It was concluded as under:- "Applying the aforesaid test contained in both Sahney Steel as well as Ponni Sugars, we are of the view that the object, as stated in the statement of objects and reasons, of the amendment ordinance was that since the average occupancy in cinema theatres has fallen considerabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... machinery. The assessee's claim of depreciation to that extent must shrink. Assessee argues that, the Tribunal correctly held that, the subsidy had not been given in relation to acquisition of plant or machinery and that, therefore, same cannot be adjusted towards cost of acquisition. 10. It is undoubted that, the subsidy had no relation to the assessee's acquisition of plant or machinery. It was to be granted to an industry which had set up the new industrial unit in the District of Kutch. In such back-ground, question - arises whether such subsidy would be adjustable towards assessee's costs of acquisition of capital assets. We may notice that, a similar question was considered by Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v. Grace Paper Industries (P.) Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 591/52 Taxman 18. The Court noted that, the subsidy was granted by the Government for development of industries in back-ward areas. It was not part of the actual cost of plant or machinery. The Court, therefore, held that it could not have been deducted towards costs of acquisition. The Court held as under:- "We have carefully considered the provisions relating to the grant of cash s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liked, could it be said that it was granted for meeting the cost of the capital assets? In our opinion, taking an overall view of the various provisions of the scheme, it is difficult to hold that cash subsidy was granted to entrepreneur to meet the cost of the fixed assets or part thereof The cost of the fixed assets was merely adopted as a measure for working out subsidy. In fact, a careful examination of the scheme reveals that it is the value of the fixed assets and not its cost which is adopted as the basis for computing the amount of the subsidy. Emphasis on value and not the cost is evident from the fact that land and building already owned by an industrial unit, cost of tools, jigs, dies and moulds, transport charges, insurance premium, erection cost, value of second-hand machinery purchased by an industrial unit etc. were to be taken into account while computing the value of fixed assets for the purposes of subsidy. In other words, it was the value of the fixed assets which formed the basis for computation of subsidy to be granted under the scheme. Subsidy, in our opinion, did not meet the cost of the fixed assets directly or indirectly. Under the scheme of the Central Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." 20. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Office is, accordingly, directed to delete the impugned addition of Rs 46,83,11,376. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 13. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the amount of Rs 53,23,56,012, being a capital receipt in nature, from the total income. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 14. Ground no. 3 is thus allowed. 15. In grounds no. 4, the assessee has raised the following grievance: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Employees Stock Option Expenses amounting to Rs.83,84,690 /-." 16. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue in the appeal is exactly the same as in the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e. 2006-07, cross-appeals for which were heard along with this set of cross-appeals, and whatever we decide for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,99,32,651/- without appreciating the fact that no expenditure has been incurred by the appellant for earning exempt income. 5(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in computing disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 6,99,32,651/- by applying a method akin to the method prescribed under Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that the same is not applicable to instant Assessment Year. 20. In ground no. 15, which is also a connected issue, the assessee has raised the following grievance: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the addition of expenditure incurred in relation to earning exempt income in computing Book Profit u/s 115JB without appreciating the fact that no such expenditure had been debited to the Profit & Loss A/c in the relevant assessment year." 21. So far as these grievances of the assessee are concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact the period pertains to the period prior to the insertion of rule 8D, and that the issue in appeal is covered by decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a series of coordinate bench decisions, it has been consistently held so far as the pre-amendment period is concerned, a disallowance of 1% is reasonableparticularly when the assessee has made investments entirety out of his own funds and when there are no borrowings costs involved. It is an undisputed position, on the facts of this case, that the assessee has made the investments entirely out of his own funds. The disallowance is thus restricted to 1% of the tax-exempt income. The assessee gets the relief accordingly......... 22. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Tribunal in assessee's own cases for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Respectfully following the same, we restrict the disallowance under section 14A to 1% of tax-exempt income. Ordered, accordingly. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. As regards the question of adjustment of book profits under section 15JB for the 14A disallowance, we find that this aspect of the matter stands concluded, in favour of the assessee, by a special bench decision in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd [(2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Del SB)]. The assessee gets relief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20/- and Rs.1,81,50,266/- respectively. The Assessee availed of additional depreciation @ 20% on the original cost of the machinery at Rs.5,95,494/- and Rs.48,26,123/- respectively in AY 2006-07. In AY 2007-08 also the Assessee claimed additional depreciation at 20% of the original cost viz., Rs.5,95,494 and Rs.48,26,123 respectively in all depreciation totaling Rs.54,21,617/-. 26. According to the AO, the deduction u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act is granted only to "new" plant and machinery and once depreciation is granted in the 1st year in which the machinery is installed or put to use, the machinery ceases to be a new machinery and therefore additional depreciation cannot be allowed. The plea of the Assessee however was that Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act merely provides that further to the normal depreciation at the prescribed rates, an additional depreciation shall be allowed to the assessee at the rate of 20% on new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 31-03-2005. However, the period the period during which such additional depreciation shall be allowed is not specified in the Act. Thus, one may conclude that the allowance of additional depreciation shall not only be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half of the amount admissible under clause (ii) (exclusive of extra allowance for double or multiple shift working of the machinery or plant and the extra allowance in respect of machinery or plant installed in any premises used as a hotel) in respect of the previous year in which such machinery or plant is installed or, if the machinery or plant is first put to use in the immediately succeeding previous year, then in respect of that previous year :" Sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act as reinserted by finance (No.2) Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1-4-2003, reads thus: '(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2002, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii): Provided that such further deduction of fifteen per cent shall be allowed to- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preciation even in the second and subsequent years have to be allowed on the original cost of the Asset. These are evident from a plain reading and literal construction of the relevant statutory provisions. 30. The CIT(A) after considering the aforesaid scheme and history of the provisions of Sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act, deleted the addition made by AO observing as follows :- "I have considered the submissions of the Ld. A/R and find substance in the contention of the Appellant. On a conjoint reading of the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 and reinserted by Finance Act, 2002 it is evident that the said sections specifically restricted the allowability of additional depreciation in the year of installation of P&M. However, in the section 32(1)(iia) amended vide Finance Act, 2005 Legislature had omitted the proviso wherein it was provided that such depreciation could be claimed only in the initial assessment year. This being a specific omission it could be construed that the intent of the Legislature was not to restrict the allowance of additional depreciation to the year in which the assets are installed but also in the second and subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conferred the benefit of additional depreciation only in the first AY when the asset was installed and first put to use. However vide Finance Act, 2005, clause (iia) to Sec. 32(1) was amended w.e.f. 01-04-06 wherein the condition of claiming additional depreciation only in the initial AY was deleted. It was submitted that since the specific condition for claim of additional depreciation in one year has been done away with, it should be construed as the intention of the legislature to allow additional depreciation in subsequent years as well. Reliance was placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that a fiscal statute shall have to be interpreted on the basis of the language used therein and not de hors the same. Even if there is a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation :- - Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 103 Taxman 623/237 ITR 589 (SC) - Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 327/266 ITR 1 (SC) - Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 (SC) - Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC) Apart from the above, it was also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and from 01-04-2006. The plain language of the section warrants such an interpretation. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground No.3 raised by the revenue. 26. In view of these binding judicial precedents, with which we are in considered agreement, we uphold the plea of the assessee on this point as well. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, is directed to grant the additional depreciation prayed for. 27. Ground no. 6 is thus allowed. 28. In grounds no. 7, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 7(a). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming addition of unutilized CENVAT credit as on last day of accounting year being 31st March 2007 as adjustment under section 145A disregarding the fact that the appellant himself has already carried out necessary adjustment u/s 145A which was duly certified by Tax Auditors and hence any further adjustment was not warranted. 7(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to ground no. 7(a) taken here in above, even if adjustment u/s 145A in respect of unutilized CENVAT credit is carried out, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....par, Maratha and Sankrail on the contention that prescribed certificates were not filed along with the return of income." 10. "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s 80IA on Infrastructure facility, being Port at Muldwarka unit on the contention that prescribed certificates were not filed along with the return of income." 36. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we find that, as noted by the authorities below, the form 10CCB is not filed in this case, and that is a mandatory requirement under section 80IA(7) for making a claim under section 80IA. While it has been contended before us that the form 10CCB was filed alongwith the revised return of income, the material before us does not evidence so. In the orders of the Assessing Officer as also the CIT(A), it is specifically submitted that the form 10CCB is not filed by the assessee. In this view of the matter, and the absence of clarity on this factual aspect, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Office for fresh adjudication by way of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AEs was referred, it was noticed that the assessee made payment of US$ 1,93,800 towards instalment payments for two ships under BBCD (Bare Boat cum Charter Demise) arrangements for two vessels, namely MV Ambuja Bhawani and MV Ambuja Lakshmi, from its AE- namely Cement Ambuja International Limited, Mauritius (CAIL). These two vessels were self loading bulk cement carriers, and the entire arrangement was routed through, and duly approved by, the RBI. It was noted that under the terms of arrangement, the assessee company was to pay to CAIL ten half-yearly instalments of US$ 7,69,500 for both of these vessels, and the implicit interest rate, under the arrangement, was 7.5% p.a. The TPO also noted that the CAIL had obtained loan of US $ 7 million from the Bank of America, Taipei office, to part finance the vessels, and that interest rate on this financing by the CAIL was LIBOR plus 1.5% for first three years, and +1.55% for the rest of the two years. The TPO was of the view that the interest differential between the interest charged to the assessee and interest paid by the CAIL to Bank of America was mutually beneficial to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any event, interest is only one part of the working in the computation of instalments, and one cannot consider the same on a standalone basis in the transaction. The benchmarking is to be done for the entire transaction and not a small and isolated transaction segment. The interest rate of 7.5% implicit in the BBCD arrangement is a part of the pricing and cannot be considered separately In the case of Essar Shipping Limited Vs DCIT [(2009) 27 SOT 409 (Mum)], a coordinate bench of this Tribunal has taken note of the working showing interest rate @ 8%, which has remained unchallenged by the revenue. We have also noted that the payments under the BBCD arrangements were made with specific regulatory approval prescribed by the RBI, and there are coordinate bench decisions, such as in the case of ACIT Vs Dow Agrosciences India (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 76 taxmann.124 (Mum)], holding that when such regulatory approvals are duly obtained, that approval can also be viewed in support of the transaction price as an arm's length price. In any event, the total ALP adjustment is less than Rs 20 lakhs, and the relevant financial period is almost 20 years ago, it may not even be appropriate to even re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, prays that a direction may be given that the Assessing Officer at least allows it on a payment basis as and when the payments are actually made. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose this prayer, though he adds that the deduction can only be allowed when it is otherwise admissible, and that aspect of the matter will have to be examined by the Assessing Officer. That is indeed the correct approach. While we dismiss the grievance of the asseseee, we make it clear that the Assessing Officer will take a call, as and when the payment is actually made, on the admissibility of deduction in accordance with the law. 48. We have no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in assessee's own case. The grievance of the assessee is, in terms of and subject to the above observations which will apply mutatis mutandis in this assessment year as well, rejected. 49. Ground no. 13 is thus dismissed. 50. In grounds no. 14, the assessee has raised the following grievance: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in not allowing exclusion of Education Cess on Income Tax, Divide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he I.T. Act, 1961 and when, a receipt is not a in the nature of income, it cannot form part of book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Court, further observed that the facts of case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) were altogether difference, where the income in question was taxable, but was exempt under a specific provision of the Act, and as such it was to be included as a part of book profit, but where the receipt is not in the nature of income at all, it cannot be included in book profit for the purpose of computation u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 48. We further noted that the ITAT special bench of Kolkata Tribunal, in the case of Sutlej Cotton mills Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1993] 45 ITD 22 (Cal.) (SB), held that a particular receipt, which is admittedly not an income cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 115J of the Act, as it defies the basic intention behind introduction of provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Jaipur bench, in case of Shree Cement Ltd. (supra) had considered an identical issue and held that incentives granted to the assessee is capital receipt and hence, cannot be p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hemes of different states amounting to Rs. 3,28,05,13,532 / - computed in total income by treating it capital in nature." 63. This is an issue coming up time and again in the appeals in the case of the assessee, and, as learned representatives fairly agree, whatever we decide on the cross-appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, which were heard along with these cross-appeals, will apply mutatis mutandis here as well. In our order for the assessment year 2006-07, while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, we have inter alia observed as follows: 5. This is a legacy issue. The Assessing Officer has simply followed the stand taken by him in the preceding assessment years. In appeal, learned CIT(A), on the same lines as his stand in the immediately preceding assessment year, analysed the schemes in detail and held, except for Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh Government's sales tax subsidy scheme, all other schemes categorically state the object and purpose as promotion of industries and allied purposes. So far as Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh Government Schemes are concerned, learned CIT(A) noted that the scheme does not specifically mention such objects an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umars Tyre Manufacturing Co [(2004) 266 ITR 325 (MP)], and CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd [(2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H)]. The entire amount of Rs 1169.93 crores was added to income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assssee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) took note of the fact that these amounts pertained to five different units under four schemes- namely Maharshtra's Dispersal of Industries Package Scheme of Incentives 1993 (Maratha Unit), Punjab's Industrial Incentives Code under the Industrial Policy, 1996 (Ropar and Bhatinda Units), Rajasthan's Sales Tax New Incentives Scheme for Industries, 1989 (Rabriyawas Unit), and Exemptions/ Concessions to Industries Excise & Taxation Department Notification No EXN C(9)2/9- dated 31-1-2-1994 (Himachal Unit). He discussed these schemes in quite a bit of detail-to the extent wordings of the preamble of the schemes are concerned, and concluded that while the amounts aggregating to Rs 130,57,12,796, in respect of Punjab and Maharashtra Schemes, are indeed capital receipts in nature, and exempt from tax as such, the amounts aggregating to Rs 39,36,21,956 are revenue in nature, and to that extent the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these subsidies are for augmenting the profits of the assessee, and that is not even the case of the revenue. The CIT(A) is simply swayed by the wording of the preamble of the scheme- something clearly impermissible. These subsidy schemes are materially similar in nature, and there are, by now, a number of decisions of the coordinate benches, as also Hon'ble Courts above, dealing with these schemes. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the subsidies received by the assessee are in the nature of sales tax subsidies, and dealing with sales tax subsidies, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Nirma Ltd [(2017) 397 ITR 49 (Guj)], has observed as follows: 7. So far as second issued as to Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) and in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the Sales-tax exemption benefit of Rs. 5,45,81,171/- as capital receipts is concerned, Mr.Mehta contended that in view of the decision of the Calcutta and Punjab High Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in reversing the view taken by CIT (Appeals) so far as Tax Appeal No.226 of 2010 is concerned, wherein the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed development of industries in Gujarat through dispersal of industries in the most backward area and backward areas. It is thus clear that the object of both the scheme was to ensure development of backward areas or for development of core sector industries in the State or for generating the employment. Perusal of both the schemes shows that the incentives extended to the eligible units were, inter alia, through exemption from payment of Sales Tax. Thus, the object of both the schemes was to attract capital investment to ensure development of backward areas and the modality or mechanism chosen to attract such investment was, inter alia, through exemption from payment of sales tax." 9. He further contended that in view of decisions of this Court in CIT v. Birla VXL Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 330/215 Taxman 117 (Guj.) and in Dy. CIT v. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 115/218 taxman 135 (Guj.) the issue is squarely covered and the decisions which are sought to be relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant are not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the case of Birla VXL Ltd. (supra), this Court has observed as under:- '12. It can thus be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommencement of production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of the trade." 14. In the result, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error. No question of law, therefore, arises. Tax Appeals are therefore dismissed.' 10. In the case of Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. (supra), this Court has observed as under:- "7. From the provisions of the said scheme, it clearly emerges that the subsidy though computed in terms of sales tax deferment or waiver, in essence it was meant for capital outlay expended by the assessee for set up of the unit in case of a new industrial unit and for expansion and diversification of an existing unit. As noted, such subsidy was available only to a new industrial unit or a unit undertaking expansion or diversification. Fixed capital investment has been defined as to include various investments in land under use, new construction, plant and machinery etc. The entitlement was related to percentage of fixed capital investment. 8. It is undoubtedly true that such subsidy was computed in terms of sales tax deferment and necessarily therefore, would accrue to an industry only once the commercial production commence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e capital cost and not for running the business of the assessee. Moreover, even this subsidy which is determined based on sales tax assessment orders for 9 years, 6 years etc., are subject to maximum outer limit already fixed under the respective schemes. Though the quantification of the subsidy has been made post commencement of business, the measurement of subsidy is immaterial. In our considered opinion, none of the schemes contemplated to finance the assessee in the form of subsidy / incentive for meeting the working capital requirements of the assessee company post commencement of business. Hence, by applying the purpose test, apparently, the subsidy / incentive received in the instant case would only have to be construed as capital receipts not chargeable to income tax. In this regard, we find that ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., reported in 306 ITR 392, wherein the incentive conferred under that scheme were two fold. First, in the nature of higher free sale sugar quota and second, in allowing the manufacturer to collect Excise duty on sale price on the free sale sugar in excess of the normal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the money in its business entirely as it liked and was not obliged to spend the money for a particular purpose like extension of docks as in the Seaham Harbour Dock Co. 5 case (supra). 16. There is a Canadian case St. John Dry Dock & Ship Building Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue 4 DLR 1, which has close similarity to the case of Seaham Harbour Dock Co. 's case (supra). In that case it was held that where subsidies were given under statutory authority, the statutory purpose for which they are authorised is relevant and may even be decisive in determining whether it is taxable income in the hands of the recipient. In that case, it was pointed out after discussing the Seaham Harbour Dock Co. 's case (supra)as well as that of Lincolnshire Sugar Co. Ltd. 5 case (supra)that subsidy given by the Canadian Government to encourage construction of dry docks was 'an aid to the construction of dry dock and not an operational subsidy'. 17. This precisely is the question raised in this case. By no stretch of imagination can the subsidies whether by way of refund of sales tax or relief of electricity charges or water charges can be treated as an aid to setting up o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see was free to use the money in its business entirely as it liked. 20. Finally, it was found that, applying the test of purpose, the Court was satisfied that the payment received by the assessee under the scheme was not in the nature of a helping hand to the trade but was capital in nature. 21. What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the "purpose test". It was specifically held that the point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant; the source of the subsidy is immaterial; the form of subsidy is equally immaterial. 22. Applying the aforesaid test contained in both Sahney Steel as well as Ponni Sugar, we are of the view that the object, as stated in the statement of objects and reasons, of the amendment ordinance was that since the average occupancy in cinema theatres has fallen considerably and hardly any new theatres have been started in the recent past, the concept of a Complete Family Entertainment Centre, more popularly known as Multiplex Theatre Complex, has emerged. These complexes offer various entertainment facilities for the entire family as a whole. It was noticed that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, pointed out that by an order dated 19.04.2016, this Court stated that the issue raised in those appeals was covered, inter alia, by the judgment in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. case (supra) and the appeals were, therefore, dismissed. 25. We have no hesitation in holding that the finding of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the facts of the incentive subsidy contained in that case is absolutely correct. In that once the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the State and to generate employment in the State, the fact that the subsidy took a particular form and the fact that it was granted only after commencement of production would make no difference. 5.3.7. We further find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., in Tax Appeal No.450 with 451-453 of 2012 dated 28/01/2013 also had an occasion to consider the very same issue in dispute before us. In this case also, the Revenue had taken a specific argument that since subsidy would be received only once unit goes for production, subsidy would be revenue nature. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred to the relevant subsidy scheme noted that concession was capped @125% of fixe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t any price related mechanism would normally be presumed to be revenue in nature. In other words, according to the Department, since incentives were given through price and duty differentials, the character of the impugned incentive in this case was revenue and not capital in nature. On the other hand, according to the assessee, what was relevant to decide the character of the incentive is the purpose test and not the mechanism of payment. 14. In our view, the controversy in hand can be resolved if we apply the test laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (supra). In that case, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that the subsidy given was up to 10% of the capital investment calculated on the basis of the quantum of investment in capital and, therefore, receipt of such subsidy was on capital account and not on revenue account. It was also urged in that case that subsidy granted on the basis of refund of sales tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods were also of capital nature as the object of granting refund of sales tax was that the assessee could set up new business or expand his existing business. The content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant." 10. In a recent judgement dated 8.1.2013 in case of DCIT-Circle1(2)-Baroda v. Inox Leisure Ltd.,we had an occasion to consider somewhat similar question in the backdrop of entertainment tax waiver scheme of State of Gujarat as well as State of Maharashtra. Even in such a case, the entertainment tax waiver which was granted in terms of sale of tickets was treated as capital in nature when it was found that same was relatable to the capital investment made by the assessee. It was held as under : "10. From the above noted provisions of thescheme it can be clearly seen that the entire purpose of granting tax exemption was for giving the boost to the terrorism sector. This was to be achieved by attracting higher investment in areas with tourism potential. In order to achieve such purpose, exemption from various taxes as may be applicable was granted. It is true that the exemption was to be computed in terms of tax otherwise payable by the industry. However, the purpose of such exemption was to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by remitting the matter back to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. First of all, it would be relevant to bring on record the crux of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. In case of Special Bench decision of Reliance Industries Ltd, the scheme dealt with sales tax exemption under the scheme of Government of Maharashtra, 1979. Further the said scheme was implemented by SICOM. The following question was referred by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessee company is justified in its claim that the sales-tax incentive allowed to it during the previous year in terms of the relevant Government order constitutes capital receipt and is not to be taken into account in the computation of total income?" The Hon'ble Tribunal for Asst Years 1984-85 and 1985-86 had held the sales tax exemption to be capital in nature as the same was given for industrial development of the backward districts as well as generation of employment. However, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teel & Press Works Ltd.'s case (supra). 38. In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. 5.4.2. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the department did not challenge the decision of the Special Bench before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. However, he fairly stated that there was a subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal which followed the Special Bench and that Division Bench order was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court while disposing of the said appeal did not reverse the decision of the Special Bench and accepted the same. When that appeal was further challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, he argued that the decision of Special Bench was never reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated by the ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue and accordingly still is a good law and therefore a binding precedent on this Division Bench. In fact, in assessee's own case for A.Y.2001-02 in ITA No.778 of 2015 dated 18/12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to be decided in the light of the Special Bench judgment in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. The Revenue's grievance in this respect is two fold. It was contended that the issue was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and the same should not have been permitted. Secondly, the view of the Tribunal in case of Reliance Industries Ltd. was challenged before the High Court. The High Court in a judgment dated 15.04.2009 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1299 of 2008 had held that no question of law in this respect arises and thereby confirmed the judgment of the Tribunal. It was pointed out that against this judgment of the High Court, the Department had approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had held that a question of law did arise. The Supreme Court framed a question and placed the matter back before the High Court. We are informed that this appeal is still pending. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee firstly contended that the Tribunal had merely remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. In earlier orders, the Revenue had approached the Court against the similar orders of the Tribunal. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me final on the very same issue. Though the said decision has been rendered for subsequent assessment year as compared to the years under consideration before us, in view of identical facts and the same legal issue, and more especially, in order to address the fact of binding precedent of Special Bench decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd., this Bench deems it fit to place reliance on the said decision also of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly, we categorically hold that the decision of the Special Bench still holds the field and is a good law. The entire contentions raised by the ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue in this regard are hereby dismissed. 5.4.5. Further, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd., reported in 72 taxmann.com 101 had an occasion to consider the fact of Special Bench decision in a more elaborate manner. The relevant operative portion is reproduced hereunder:- "11. We find that so far as the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it still holds the field. All that has happened, as a result of Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n - which is exactly what another division bench, on the same set of facts as before us, did in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. (supra). As for learned Commissioner (DR)'s suggestion that we should follow the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case off Colourman Dyechem Ltd. (supra), we find that Their Lordships, in this case, were dealing with an entirely different type of subsidy which was clearly dealing with an expansion situation. However, we would rather refrain from making any further detailed observations on this issue, as we are alive to the fact that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in Tax Appeal No 358 of 2012, has admitted appeal against the decision of this Tribunal in Ajanta's Manufacturing Ltd. case (supra) and all these issues will now come up for consideration of Their Lordships. The fact that appeal is admitted does not, as we have stated earlier as well, does not affect the binding nature of the judicial precedents. There is no dispute before us that the scheme under which the sales tax and excise duty subsidy are given to this assessee are the same as in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. (supra). All the material facts being the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure Community Welfare Expenses" amounting to Rs. 1,05,39,853/- as a business expenditure." 67. This is a legacy issue and pertains to the expenditure incurred for community welfare as the factories of the assessee are concerned in backward areas and the expenditure is incurred for the smooth functioning of the business. Right from the assessment years 1988-89 to 1994-95, the coordinate benches have allowed appeal of the assessee on this point, and from the assessment years 1995-96 to 2004-05, in which the first appellate authority has deleted similar disallowance, the coordinate benches have rejected the grievances of the Assessing Officer, against the reliefs so granted by the CIT(A). Learned Departmental Representative does not dispute this position but relies upon the stand of the Assessing Officer nevertheless. 68. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate benches all along. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 69. Ground no. 2 is thus dismissed. 70. In ground no. 3, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: "On the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at this issue is also a legacy issue and is covered by decisions of the co-ordinate benches an assessee own cases for the assessment years 1995-96 to 2000-05, copies of the orders passed by the co-ordinate benches were also placed before us. Learned Departmental Representative however relied upon the stand of the Assessing Officer. 80. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate benches in assessee own cases for the preceding assessment years. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 81. Ground no. 5 is thus dismissed. 82. In ground no. 6, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing service charges amounting to Rs. 26,000/- as a revenue expenditure." 83. Learned representative fairly agree that this issue is also a legacy issue and is covered by decisions of the co-ordinate benches an assessee own cases for the assessment years 1995-96 to 2000-05, copies of the orders passed by the co-ordinate benches were also placed before us. Learn....