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>Subsidy for Capital Investment Not Taxable as Revenue: Court Upholds Decision</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:1. Whether subsidy received as Excise Duty reimbursement is a revenue receiptRs.2. Whether the Tribunal correctly upheld the order to delete the addition made to book profits on account of subsidy received by way of excise dutyRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The first issue raised in the appeal concerns the classification of the subsidy received as Excise Duty reimbursement. The Court noted that the subsidy scheme by the Government of Bihar aimed to attract capital investment and encourage the establishment or expansion of units. The Court held that the subsidy was on capital account, not revenue account, as it was intended to promote capital investments in the state. Referring to previous decisions, including CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., the Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly applied the test to determine the nature of the subsidy. Consequently, the Court found that this issue did not present a substantial question of law and thus did not entertain it.Issue 2:The second issue in the appeal was related to whether the addition made to book profits on account of the subsidy received should be deleted. The Court reiterated that the subsidy received was of a capital nature, and therefore, it could not be added to the book profits under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the Assessing Officer's power to adjust book profits is limited to verifying compliance with the Companies Act and the audit process. The Court cited the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT to emphasize that the Assessing Officer cannot alter the book profit unless invoking the Explanation to Section 115J. Since the Revenue did not rely on this explanation in the present case, the Court found that the second issue did not raise a substantial question of law and hence was not entertained.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the questions raised did not give rise to substantial legal issues. No costs were awarded in the matter.
TaxTMI 