Tribunal rules interest subsidy under TUFS as capital receipt, allows setoff for EOU profits.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of interest subsidy under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS), holding it as a capital receipt. The Tribunal allowed the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from the 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) against profits from other units, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of interest subsidy under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) as revenue or capital receipt.
2. Setoff of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) against taxable income from other units.

Issue 1: Classification of Interest Subsidy under TUFS

Facts and Arguments:
- The assessee, a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing jute products and power generation, received a subsidy of Rs. 77,18,242 under TUFS.
- The assessee claimed the subsidy as capital in nature, while the Assessing Officer classified it as revenue receipt.
- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, stating the subsidy was meant to reimburse interest on borrowed funds, which is a revenue expenditure.

Tribunal's Analysis:
- The assessee argued that the issue was covered by favorable judgments in similar cases, such as CIT vs. Sh. Sham Lal Bansal and CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., where subsidies aimed at technological upgradation were considered capital in nature.
- The Tribunal found substantial merit in the assessee's arguments, referencing the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in ITA No. 472 of 2010, which held that subsidies under TUFS are capital in nature due to their purpose of technological enhancement.
- It was noted that the subsidy was not meant for recurring expenses but for repaying loans taken for capital assets, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that the interest subsidy under TUFS should be treated as a capital receipt, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and ruling in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Setoff of Unabsorbed Depreciation and Business Loss from 100% EOU

Facts and Arguments:
- The assessee had three units with varying profits and losses, including a 100% EOU that incurred a loss.
- The Assessing Officer disallowed the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from the 100% EOU against the profits of other units, citing that profits from the EOU are exempt under section 10B.

Tribunal's Analysis:
- The CIT(A) allowed the setoff, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's case for the previous year (AY 2004-05), which was in favor of the assessee.
- The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in its decision, as the Department had not accepted the Tribunal's earlier ruling and had filed an appeal.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Tribunal's earlier ruling had not been overturned by the High Court.
- Therefore, the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from the 100% EOU against profits from other units was allowed.

Final Orders:
- The appeal filed by the assessee regarding the classification of the interest subsidy under TUFS was allowed.
- The appeal filed by the Revenue concerning the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from the 100% EOU was dismissed.

Pronouncement:
- The order was pronounced in open court on 2nd July 2014.

---