2013 (10) TMI 67 - HC - Income Tax

Court allows transport subsidy deduction under Section 80IA, setting aside lower authorities' decisions.

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80IA for the transport subsidy received. ... Revision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s 80IA - Taxability of Transport subsidy received - Held that:- in view of the decision in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 679 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Revisional Authority had seriously erred in law in interfering with the assessment order, dated 08.02.2006, on the ground that the transport subsidy, received by the industrial undertaking of the appellant Company, could not have been deducted by resorting to Section 80IA. By its impugned order, dated 28.01.2011, the learned Tribunal perpetuated the error by agreeing with the views expressed by the Revisional Authority that transport subsidy was not entitled to be deducted in terms of the provisions of Section 80IA. – Decided in favor of Assessee. Issues:Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction of transport subsidy under Section 80IA for the assessment year 2003-2004.Analysis:The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing, submitted its return of income for the assessment year 2003-2004, showing total income as NIL and computed book profit. The company claimed a deduction of transport subsidy. The Assessing Officer agreed with the return and taxable liability, including the deduction under Section 80IA for the transport subsidy received. However, the Revisional Authority, invoking its powers under Section 263 of the Act, directed a fresh assessment, disallowing the deduction of transport subsidy under Section 80IA. The company appealed against this decision, leading to the present case.The learned Tribunal upheld the revisional order, stating that the transport subsidy received was not deductible under Section 80IA. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that a recent Division Bench decision established a direct nexus between transport subsidy and cost reduction in production, leading to increased profits. The Court referenced the Meghalaya Steels Ltd. case, highlighting that subsidies reducing the cost of production result in increased profits, which are deductible under Section 80IA. The Court concluded that the Revisional Authority and the Tribunal erred in disallowing the deduction of transport subsidy under Section 80IA.Based on the precedent set in Meghalaya Steels Ltd., the Court held that the appellant was entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80IA for the transport subsidy received. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Revisional Authority, upholding the original assessment order by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was allowed with no costs awarded.In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of the deductibility of transport subsidy under Section 80IA for the assessment year 2003-2004. The Court relied on the precedent set in Meghalaya Steels Ltd., establishing a direct nexus between transport subsidy, cost reduction in production, and increased profits, making such profits deductible under Section 80IA. The Court found errors in the decisions of the Revisional Authority and the Tribunal, ultimately allowing the appeal and upholding the original assessment order.