Tribunal: Maharashtra subsidy not taxable as capital receipt for industry expansion

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra by the assessee was a capital receipt for expanding the industry and accelerating investment, aligning with the purpose test for determining the nature of the subsidy. Previous tribunal decisions supported this view, and the Finance Act, 2015, did not apply retrospectively to make such subsidies taxable for the assessment year in question. As two possible views existed, and the Assessing Officer had taken one view, the CIT's order under section 263 was set aside, and the subsidy was deemed not chargeable to tax.

---

---

Issues:
Taxability of subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra as a capital or revenue receipt.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the CIT's order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT held that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra was a revenue receipt and chargeable to tax, contrary to the treatment given by the Assessing Officer. The primary issue was whether the subsidy should be considered a capital or revenue receipt.

The Industrial Policy of Maharashtra aimed at promoting industry and employment growth by providing incentives to new and expanding units. The subsidy received was for accelerating investment in industry and creating employment opportunities. The objective was to encourage industrial growth, which aligned with the capital receipt criteria. The Tribunal referred to relevant judgments like CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT to establish the purpose test for determining the nature of the subsidy.

The Tribunal found that the subsidy received by the assessee was for expanding the industry and accelerating investment, making it a capital receipt. Previous tribunal decisions supported this view, considering similar subsidies as capital in nature. The Finance Act, 2015, amended the definition of income to include subsidies as taxable, but this was prospective and did not apply to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the subsidy received was deemed a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax.

In revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act, it was established that if two possible views existed, and the Assessing Officer had taken one view, the CIT could not impose a different view. Since treating the subsidy as a capital receipt was a possible view, the CIT's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal concluded that the subsidy from the Government of Maharashtra was a capital receipt and not taxable for the assessment year in question.

---