Industrial interest subsidy and EOU depreciation set-off: treated as capital; extra depreciation and MAT asset-sale gains allowed

Interest subsidy received under TUFS/State incentive scheme was held to be a capital receipt because, following binding co-ordinate bench precedent on an identical incentive scheme, the subsidy was treated as intended to promote industrial activity and not as trading income; the addition was deleted and the Revenue's ground failed. Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of a 100% EOU against profits of a non-eligible unit was allowed since the assessee had validly opted out of s.10B under s.10B(8), making the EOU profits subject to ss.70-72, reinforced by SC treating s.10B as a deduction provision; the Revenue's ground was dismissed. Additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) was allowed in a subsequent year as "new" refers to the asset's status at acquisition/installation and the restriction to the initial year ceased from 01.04.2006; the Revenue's ground was dismissed. Under s.115JB, profit on sale of fixed assets was excluded from book profit by applying Tribunal precedent; the deletion was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of interest subsidy as capital or revenue receipt.
2. Set off of loss from 100% EOU unit against profit from non-eligible unit.
3. Allowance of additional depreciation on plant and machinery in subsequent years.
4. Inclusion of profit from the sale of fixed assets in book profit under Section 115JB.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Interest Subsidy as Capital or Revenue Receipt:

Facts and Arguments:
- The Assessee received subsidies under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme 2000 (WBIS 2000) and the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) and claimed them as capital receipts not chargeable to tax.
- The AO contended that the subsidies were revenue receipts since they were given after the commencement of production and were incidental to carrying on the business.
- The Assessee argued that the subsidies were for capital investment and modernization, thus capital in nature.

Judgment:
- The CIT(A) and ITAT held that the subsidies were capital receipts. The purpose of the subsidy was crucial, and since it was for modernization and expansion, it was deemed capital.
- The ITAT cited previous decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., emphasizing the purpose test for determining the nature of subsidies.

2. Set Off of Loss from 100% EOU Unit Against Profit from Non-Eligible Unit:

Facts and Arguments:
- The Assessee had losses in its 100% EOU unit and sought to set off these losses against profits from non-eligible units.
- The AO disallowed the set-off, arguing that losses from an exempt unit (under Section 10B) cannot be set off against profits from non-exempt units.
- The Assessee cited previous Tribunal decisions in its favor, arguing that Section 10B provides for a deduction, not an exemption.

Judgment:
- The CIT(A) and ITAT upheld the Assessee's claim, allowing the set-off. The ITAT referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Yokogawa India Ltd., which clarified that Section 10B provides for a deduction, making the losses eligible for set-off against other business profits.

3. Allowance of Additional Depreciation on Plant and Machinery in Subsequent Years:

Facts and Arguments:
- The Assessee claimed additional depreciation on new machinery in subsequent years after acquisition and installation.
- The AO disallowed the claim, stating that additional depreciation is only allowable in the year of acquisition and installation.
- The Assessee argued that there is no restriction in the statute limiting additional depreciation to the year of acquisition.

Judgment:
- The CIT(A) and ITAT ruled in favor of the Assessee, allowing additional depreciation in subsequent years. The ITAT noted that the legislative history and the plain language of Section 32(1)(iia) support the allowance of additional depreciation beyond the initial year.

4. Inclusion of Profit from Sale of Fixed Assets in Book Profit Under Section 115JB:

Facts and Arguments:
- The Assessee excluded profit from the sale of fixed assets from its book profit calculation under Section 115JB.
- The AO included this profit, arguing it should be part of the book profit.
- The Assessee cited judicial precedents that capital gains exempt under specific provisions should not be included in book profit calculations.

Judgment:
- The CIT(A) and ITAT sided with the Assessee, excluding the profit from the sale of fixed assets from the book profit. The ITAT referenced the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Frigsales (India) Ltd., which held that exempt income should not form part of the book profit under Section 115JB.

Conclusion:

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all four issues, providing detailed reasoning and referencing relevant judicial precedents to support its conclusions. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed in its entirety.

---