Tax Tribunal: Revenue and Assessee Appeals Partly Allowed, Sales Tax Subsidy Not Taxable

The tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The sales tax subsidy was treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. However, the deduction claimed for education cess was disallowed as it was considered part of income tax. Payments to non-residents were disallowed for not deducting tax at source, and a claim for deduction under section 80IA was remanded for further verification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of sales tax subsidy of Rs. 1,49,39,458/-
2. Claim of education cess of Rs. 67,83,793/- as deduction
3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act
4. Additional ground: Claim of deduction under section 80IA on account of generation of power

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim of Sales Tax Subsidy of Rs. 1,49,39,458/-:

The assessee raised an additional ground before the CIT(A) to exclude the sales tax subsidy as a capital receipt while computing the total income. The subsidy was granted to promote industrial development and employment generation in underdeveloped regions of Maharashtra. The CIT(A) considered the remand report, terms of the scheme, and judicial precedents, concluding that the subsidy was a capital receipt. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., which held that subsidies aimed at setting up or expanding units are capital in nature. The CIT(A) also cited various ITAT and High Court decisions supporting this view. Consequently, the CIT(A) admitted the additional ground and ruled in favor of the assessee, treating the sales tax subsidy as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.

2. Claim of Education Cess of Rs. 67,83,793/- as Deduction:

The assessee claimed a deduction for education cess on income tax and dividend distribution tax, which the CIT(A) allowed. However, the appellate tribunal held that surcharge or cess is part of income tax and not deductible under section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, effective from 01.04.2005 as per the Finance Act 2022. Therefore, the tribunal ruled that the assessee is not eligible for this deduction, allowing the revenue's appeal on this ground.

3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act:

The AO disallowed payments made to non-residents (ICIC Prising U.K. and Platts USA) totaling Rs. 2,67,763/- under section 40(a)(i) for not deducting tax at source as required under section 195 of the Act. The payments were considered royalties. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, as the payments were indeed subject to tax deduction under section 195, thereby dismissing this ground of appeal.

4. Additional Ground: Claim of Deduction under Section 80IA on Account of Generation of Power:

The assessee filed an additional ground for claiming deduction under section 80IA for power generated by a coal-based boiler used in manufacturing chemicals. The tribunal noted that this claim was not raised before the lower authorities and restored the issue to the AO for de novo verification and decision. Thus, this ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed, and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 30.11.2022.

---