TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms subsidy treatment as capital receipt, limits AO's book profit adjustments to statutory compliance</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 Versus Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 Versus Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Justification of upholding the order to delete excess depreciation claimed by the assessee.2. Capital subsidy received as excise duty reimbursement not considered a revenue receipt.3. Justification of upholding the order to delete addition made to the book profit on account of excess depreciation and subsidy received by way of reimbursement of commercial tax.Analysis:Issue 1:The High Court noted that a similar issue had been considered before in a previous assessment year for the same assessee. The Court recorded that the Revenue did not press this ground, and hence, this question was not considered.Issue 2 and 3:In addressing these issues, the Court referred to a previous case involving the same assessee. The Court observed that the subsidy received by the assessee from the State of Bihar was deemed a capital receipt as it was intended to encourage capital investments in the state. This characterization was based on the purpose of the subsidy, which was to attract investment and promote the establishment or expansion of units. The Court cited relevant Supreme Court decisions to support this conclusion. As a capital receipt, the subsidy could not be added to arrive at the book profits under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's power to adjust book profits is limited to ensuring compliance with the Companies Act and the audit process. The Revenue did not invoke the relevant provision to alter the book profit declared in the audited accounts of the assessee. Therefore, the Court held that the questions raised did not give rise to any substantial legal issues and were dismissed based on precedents, including the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v/s. CIT.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the treatment of the subsidy as a capital receipt and the deletion of excess depreciation from the book profit calculation.
TaxTMI 