Industrial promotion subsidy as capital receipt, with related-party interest and PF/ESI disallowances also sustained for the assessee.

An appellate discussion under ITAT Kolkata addressed three tax issues: marginal excess interest paid to a related party was treated as nominal, and the deletion of the disallowance was sustained; delayed deposit of employees' PF and ESI contributions was allowed on the strength of binding jurisdictional precedent, so the disallowance was also sustained; and sales tax incentive received under a West Bengal industrial promotion scheme was treated as a capital receipt, not taxable, because the scheme's object was industrial promotion rather than supplementing trading income. The Revenue's challenge failed on all points, and the relief granted to the assessee was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of disallowance of excess interest paid to a related party was justified; (ii) Whether the deletion of disallowance relating to delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was justified; (iii) Whether sales tax incentive received under the State scheme was a capital receipt not liable to tax.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of disallowance of excess interest paid to a related party was justified.

Analysis: The interest paid was found to have exceeded the permissible level only marginally. The appellate authority treated the excess as nominal and within tolerable limits, and no factual or legal infirmity in that finding was established.

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deletion of disallowance relating to delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was justified.

Analysis: The claim was allowed following binding jurisdictional precedent on delayed employee contribution payments. No infirmity in the appellate finding was shown.

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether sales tax incentive received under the State scheme was a capital receipt not liable to tax.

Analysis: The incentive was received under the West Bengal industrial promotion scheme, and an identical scheme in a group concern had already been held to confer a capital receipt. The Revenue could not distinguish the scheme or the facts from the earlier binding view applied by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The receipt was held to be capital in nature and not taxable.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal failed on all contested issues, and the relief granted to the assessee was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsidy granted under an industrial promotion scheme, when its object is to promote industrial activity rather than to supplement trading receipts, is a capital receipt.

---