Tribunal rulings favor assessee on capital subsidy, repair costs; upholds Revenue on Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam.

The Tribunal partly allowed both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals. The additions for capital subsidy and treatment of capital subsidy received from the Central Government were disallowed, favoring the assessee. However, the addition under 'U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam' and the treatment of repair to plant & machinery were upheld, partly favoring the Revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance of the Molasses Reserve Fund. The decision was rendered on 20th January 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,45,985/- under 'U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam' for computing 'Book Profit' under section 115JB.
2. Addition of Rs. 17,84,404/- for capital subsidy to book profits under section 115JB.
3. Addition of Rs. 1 Lakh on account of forfeiture of security deposit under section 28(iv).
4. Disallowance of Molasses Reserve Fund.
5. Treatment of capital subsidy received from Central Government.
6. Addition on account of repair to plant & machinery.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,45,985/- under 'U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam' for computing 'Book Profit' under section 115JB:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee transferred the amount to a reserve not specified under section 33AC, and as per Explanation 1 to section 115JB, the book profit must be increased by the amount carried to any reserve account. The Tribunal referenced the Apex Court decision in State Bank of Patiala, emphasizing that reserves set aside from profits cannot be claimed as deductions. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition, rejecting the assessee's appeal on this ground.

2. Addition of Rs. 17,84,404/- for capital subsidy to book profits under section 115JB:
The Tribunal found that the capital subsidy received was not an appropriation of profits and thus should not be added back while computing income under section 115JB. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including the Hon’ble High Court’s ruling that the subsidy received was capital in nature. Following these precedents, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground, directing that the subsidy should not be added to the book profits.

3. Addition of Rs. 1 Lakh on account of forfeiture of security deposit under section 28(iv):
This ground was not pressed by the assessee’s counsel and was therefore dismissed as infructuous.

4. Disallowance of Molasses Reserve Fund:
The Tribunal referenced its previous decision for the assessment year 2011-12, where it was held that the Molasses Reserve Fund is a provision in nature and not an actual liability. Following this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground.

5. Treatment of capital subsidy received from Central Government:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, which followed earlier rulings that the capital subsidy received by the assessee was not taxable as revenue receipt. The Tribunal referenced multiple past decisions, including those of the Hon’ble High Court, which consistently held that such subsidies are capital in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground.

6. Addition on account of repair to plant & machinery:
The Tribunal examined the nature of the consultancy fee paid by the assessee for an old turbine. It was found that part of the consultancy was towards finding a suitable substitute for the turbine, making it partly capital in nature. The Tribunal directed that 70% of the consultancy fee be treated as capital expenditure and included in the block of assets for depreciation purposes, while the remaining 30% was to be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal thus partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground.

Conclusion:
Both appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were partly allowed. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 20th January 2017.

---