Tribunal deems subsidy as capital, supporting industrial growth in less developed areas.

The Tribunal classified the subsidy received by the assessee as capital in nature, intended to encourage setting up industries in less developed areas. The subsidy of Rs. 3,51,550 under the Package Scheme of Incentives - 2007 was deemed capital, overturning the revenue classification by lower authorities. The appeal was allowed, and the subsidy was held to be capital in nature.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the subsidy received by the assessee (capital or revenue).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Subsidy Received by the Assessee (Capital or Revenue):

The primary issue in this case is whether the subsidy of Rs. 3,51,550 received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives – 2007 should be classified as capital in nature or revenue. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had determined the subsidy to be revenue in nature and brought it to tax accordingly. The assessee appealed against this decision.

Arguments Presented:
- The assessee argued that the subsidy was intended to encourage the setting up of industries in less developed areas and should thus be considered capital in nature. The assessee relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in their own case for previous assessment years, which had ruled similarly.
- The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities, maintaining that the subsidy was revenue in nature.

Tribunal's Analysis:
- The Tribunal examined the Preamble of the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, which indicated that the objective of the subsidy was to promote industrial development in less developed areas of the state. The scheme aimed to provide fiscal incentives to achieve higher and sustainable economic growth, with an emphasis on balanced regional development and employment generation.
- The Tribunal referred to the purposive test established by the Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392), which determines the nature of the subsidy based on the purpose for which it is given. If the subsidy is intended to assist in setting up new units or expanding existing units, it is considered capital in nature.
- The Tribunal also cited the Hyderabad Bench's decision in Thermo Cables Limited vs. ACIT, which supported the view that subsidies granted as incentives for setting up new industries in eligible areas are capital in nature.
- The Tribunal further referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279), which reiterated that the object of the subsidy scheme, rather than the point of time or form of subsidy, determines its nature.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that the subsidy received by the assessee was intended to encourage the setting up of industries and not to subsidize operating expenses. Therefore, the subsidy was capital in nature.
- The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Result:
- The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the subsidy was classified as capital in nature.

Order Pronounced:
- The order was pronounced in the open court on 6th April, 2021.

---