2017 (3) TMI 1051 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal: Capital receipts not taxable, subsidies excluded from book profits, deductions reconsidered, disallowance restricted

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus A.C.I.T., Range-12, Kolkata And D.C.I.T., Circle-12, Kolkata Versus Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus A.C.I.T., Range-12, Kolkata And D.C.I.T., Circle-12, Kolkata Versus Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the interest subsidy and excise duty refund received by the Assessee are capital receipts not chargeable to tax.2. Whether the revised return of income filed by the Assessee was valid.3. Whether the interest subsidy and excise duty refund should be included in the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.4. Whether the addition of Lab Subsidy was justified in computing deduction under section 80IB.5. Whether the addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interest Subsidy and Excise Duty Refund as Capital Receipts:The Assessee received interest subsidy and excise duty refund from the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. The Assessee claimed these as capital receipts not chargeable to tax based on the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered these subsidies as revenue receipts chargeable to tax. The CIT(A) held that the subsidies were capital receipts not chargeable to tax, as they were given to accelerate industrial development and generate employment in Jammu & Kashmir. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, relying on the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s ruling, which emphasized that the subsidies were intended to achieve public purposes like industrial development and employment generation, making them capital receipts.2. Validity of Revised Return:The Assessee filed a revised return declaring lower income, claiming the subsidies as capital receipts. The AO acted on this revised return. The CIT(A) held that the revised return was valid under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, as the AO did not treat it as invalid. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance regarding the revised return, affirming that it was valid and acted upon correctly.3. Inclusion of Subsidies in Book Profits under Section 115JB:The Assessee argued that the interest subsidy and excise duty refund, being capital receipts, should not be included in the computation of book profits under section 115JB, even though credited in the profit and loss account. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, stating that these sums were credited in the profit and loss account and their exclusion was not specifically provided under the explanation below section 115JB(2). The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the ITAT Kolkata Bench in Binani Industries Ltd. and the Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd., concluding that receipts not in the nature of income should not form part of book profits under section 115JB. The Tribunal held that the subsidies, being capital receipts, should be excluded for determining book profits under section 115JB.4. Addition of Lab Subsidy in Deduction under Section 80IB:The Assessee claimed that the proportionate amount of Lab Subsidy credited to the profit and loss account should be included while allowing deduction under section 80IB. The CIT(A) dismissed this claim, following the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s decision in Shree Balaji Alloys. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the Assessee’s claim and provide relief if the contention that the sum was already reduced while computing eligible deduction under section 80IB was found correct.5. Addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:The AO made an addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D, disallowing expenses related to exempt income (dividend). The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT Kolkata’s decision in REI Agro Ltd., which held that only investments yielding dividend during the previous year should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to the extent of the dividend income earned (Rs. 8,440), partly allowing the Assessee’s appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and partly allowed the Assessee’s appeal, affirming that the subsidies were capital receipts not chargeable to tax, the revised return was valid, the subsidies should be excluded from book profits under section 115JB, directed reconsideration of the Lab Subsidy addition, and restricted the section 14A disallowance to the extent of the dividend income.