2017 (11) TMI 1353 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal classifies subsidy as capital, remits interest issue for review, modifies expense treatment

ACIT, Circle-10 (1), New Delhi Versus Pasadensa Foods Ltd., (Now known as Dabur Foods Ltd.) And Vice-Versa

ACIT, Circle-10 (1), New Delhi Versus Pasadensa Foods Ltd., (Now known as Dabur Foods Ltd.) And Vice-Versa - Tmi Issues:1. Treatment of subsidy as capital in nature.2. Addition of interest on account of capitalization.3. Deletion of addition of administrative expenses.4. Reduction of subsidy under West Bengal Incentive Scheme from fixed assets.Issue 1: Treatment of subsidy as capital in nature:The case involved an appeal regarding the treatment of a subsidy of Rs. 2.5 crore as capital in nature, received by the assessee from the West Bengal Government. The Assessing Officer considered it as revenue, but the CIT(A) overturned this decision. The tribunal analyzed the purpose of the subsidy and referred to relevant Supreme Court judgments. It was established that the subsidy was received for setting up an industry, making it a capital receipt. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the subsidy as capital in nature.Issue 2: Addition of interest on account of capitalization:The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,68,33,194 made by the Assessing Officer for capitalization of interest. The tribunal noted that the business had commenced in the previous assessment year, as accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it was held that no disallowance of interest was warranted for assets already in use. However, heavy additions to fixed assets during the year raised concerns. The tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine interest paid on capital borrowed for assets not yet in use.Issue 3: Deletion of addition of administrative expenses:The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 41,18,347 made by the Assessing Officer for administrative expenses. The tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s finding, stating that only the Mango pulp business was set up in the preceding year, while the Pineapple business was in the process. Expenses related to the Pineapple unit were to be capitalized, and those related to the Mango pulp unit allowed as deduction.Issue 4: Reduction of subsidy under West Bengal Incentive Scheme from fixed assets:The assessee challenged the reduction of a subsidy under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme from the value of fixed assets. The tribunal examined relevant legal precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment and Explanation 10 to section 43(1). It was concluded that the subsidy should be reduced from the cost of acquisition of assets, in line with Explanation 10. The tribunal upheld the reduction of the subsidy from fixed assets, dismissing the assessee's appeal.In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The detailed analysis of each issue provided clarity on the treatment of subsidy, addition of interest, deletion of administrative expenses, and reduction of subsidy from fixed assets, based on legal interpretations and factual circumstances.