Tribunal: Subsidy not deductible for depreciation. Ad expenses reduced.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the subsidy received from the Maharashtra State Government was capital in nature and should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation calculation. The Tribunal also reduced the ad hoc disallowance of advertising and sales promotion expenses from Rs. 19,42,224 to Rs. 5 lakhs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation by reducing the incentives received from the Maharashtra State Government from the cost of the building and plant and machinery.
2. Enhancement of income by treating the subsidy received from the Maharashtra Government as revenue receipt.
3. Disallowance of advertising and sales promotion expenses on an ad hoc basis.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation:
The assessee, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing steel, received a subsidy from the Maharashtra State Government under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. The subsidy was intended to encourage industrial dispersal to less developed areas. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee by reducing the subsidy amount from the cost of the building and plant and machinery, citing Section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO viewed the subsidy as deductible from the actual cost of the assets. The CIT(A) upheld this view, treating the subsidy as a capital receipt but reducing it from the asset's cost while computing depreciation.

2. Enhancement of Income:
The CIT(A) further enhanced the income by treating the entire subsidy received as a revenue receipt, thereby making it fully taxable in the year of receipt. The CIT(A) distinguished the assessee's case from other cases like Reliance Industries Ltd., Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Rasoi Ltd., Shree Cement Ltd., and Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., stating that the primary purpose of the subsidy in the assessee's case was to generate employment rather than to fund the setting up of the industry. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., which emphasized the purpose test to determine the nature of the subsidy.

3. Disallowance of Advertising and Sales Promotion Expenses:
The AO disallowed 20% of the advertising and sales promotion expenses on an ad hoc basis, amounting to Rs. 19,42,224, due to the non-verifiability of the expenses and the high probability of excessive expenditure being debited to show lower taxable income. The CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the AO for verification of facts. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the details provided by the assessee, noted that most expenses were paid by cheque and were supported by bills, with TDS deducted where applicable. Considering the total turnover and expenses, the Tribunal deemed a reasonable disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs to be justifiable.

Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the subsidy received by the assessee under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, was capital in nature, intended for industrial development in the state's backward areas, and not for meeting the cost of assets. Therefore, the subsidy should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for computing depreciation. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Reliance Industries Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue.

Regarding the disallowance of advertising and sales promotion expenses, the Tribunal found the AO's ad hoc disallowance to be excessive and reduced it to Rs. 5 lakhs, which was agreed upon by the assessee's counsel.

Final Order:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the subsidy being treated as a capital receipt and the disallowance of advertising and sales promotion expenses being reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs.

---