Sale proceeds of MEIS/FPS licences are capital receipts, not business income under s.2(24)(xviii) - appeal allowed

ITAT CHENNAI held that receipts from sale of MEIS/FPS licenses are capital receipts and not taxable as profits and gains from business under s.2(24)(xviii). The AO and CIT(A) had treated the receipts as revenue, but the Tribunal, relying on its detailed order in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18, reversed that finding and concluded such receipts do not constitute income under the cited provision. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether receipts on transfer/sale of MEIS (Merchandise Exports from India Scheme) duty-credit scrips are revenue receipts taxable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or are capital receipts not chargeable to tax.

2. Whether MEIS duty-credit scrips constitute "assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement" within the meaning of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act and thereby fall within the amended definition of "income".

3. Whether ICDS-VII (treatment of Government grants) and specific sub-clauses of section 28 (including clauses iiia-iiie) apply to MEIS scrips and render them taxable as business income.

4. Proper rule of statutory interpretation to be applied to the phrase "by whatever name called" and whether ejusdem generis limits the scope of sub-clause (xviii) to items ejusdem generis with "subsidy, grant, cash incentive, duty drawback, waiver, concession, reimbursement".

5. Applicability of the "purpose test" (as applied in antecedent authority) to determine the character (capital or revenue) of incentives/rewards provided under export promotion schemes.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Characterisation of receipts from sale/transfer of MEIS scrips (capital v. revenue)

Legal framework: Determination of character of receipts as capital or revenue is governed by established principles, including application of the "purpose test" (whether the assistance's object is to enable running the business profitably - revenue - or to create/expand capital structure/market area - capital).

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal's earlier decisions in the assessee's own cases for multiple assessment years applied the Supreme Court ratio in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals (purpose test) and held analogous export-incentive receipts to be capital receipts. Coordinate Benches have differed (some earlier orders treating certain duty-credit scrips as revenue) but later orders (including consolidated orders for successive years) treated MEIS/MLFPS scrips as capital receipts. A High Court decision on constitutional validity of s.2(24)(xviii) did not decide applicability to MEIS-type rewards.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the Foreign Trade Policy (Chapter 3, MEIS) and concluded MEIS scrips are "rewards" intended to offset infrastructural inefficiencies and to promote export competitiveness / explore new markets - i.e., to expand market area rather than to meet day-to-day running costs. The Tribunal held that the manner of calculation (percentage of turnover) or year-to-year grant does not alter the intrinsic character of the receipt. It applied the purpose test (Ponni Sugars) and concluded the object of MEIS is not to run business more profitably but to expand market reach; therefore the receipt is capital in nature.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - application of the purpose test to MEIS scrips and holding them capital receipts is the operative ratio. Observations distinguishing other benches' factual matrices are explanatory.

Conclusions: Receipts on sale/transfer of MEIS duty-credit scrips are capital receipts and not taxable under "Profits and gains of business or profession". Accordingly, additions treating them as business income are to be set aside.

Issue 2 - Whether MEIS scrips fall within section 2(24)(xviii) (assistance/subsidy etc.)

Legal framework: Section 2(24)(xviii), as inserted/amended, includes assistance in forms specified (subsidy, grant, cash incentive, duty drawback, waiver, concession, reimbursement) by Central/State/authorities, "by whatever name called", within the definition of "income" (subject to limited exceptions).

Precedent Treatment: High Court upheld constitutional validity of the amendment but did not adjudicate on applicability to specific benefits like MEIS. Other Tribunal benches have interpreted similar terms; Amritsar Bench and others have held that "exemption" and "reward" are distinct from items enumerated in s.2(24)(xviii).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analysed the elements of MEIS (objective, nature of duty-credit scrips as transferable rewards, permitted uses) and compared them with ordinary meanings of "subsidy", "grant", "cash incentive", "reimbursement", "duty drawback", "waiver" and "concession". It concluded no "subsidy/grant/cash incentive/duty drawback/waiver/concession/reimbursement" is present in MEIS; the benefit is a "reward" to offset inefficiencies and promote market expansion. The Tribunal applied ejusdem generis to limit the scope of the general phrase "by whatever name called" to matters of the same kind as the specific enumerations, and held that phrase expands only the listed items and not the separate word "assistance". The Tribunal distinguished "reward" from "assistance" (reward = recognition for service/achievement; assistance = help in money/resources), concluding MEIS rewards fall outside s.2(24)(xviii).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ejusdem generis application and conclusion that MEIS is not covered by s.2(24)(xviii) and therefore not income under that provision. Observations on linguistic distinctions and dictionary meanings are supportive reasoning.

Conclusions: MEIS duty-credit scrips do not constitute "assistance" as enumerated in s.2(24)(xviii); the amendment does not bring MEIS rewards within the definition of "income".

Issue 3 - Applicability of ICDS-VII and section 28 sub-clauses to MEIS scrips

Legal framework: ICDS-VII prescribes accounting treatment for Government grants; section 28 sub-clauses (iiia-iiie) deal with profits on sale of certain licences, cash assistance against exports, duty drawback, transfer of benefit under DEPB/DFRC etc.

Precedent Treatment: ICDS-VII was not held determinative where the statutory definition of "income" differs; Tribunal precedents have held ICDS inapplicable where the underlying benefit is not a "grant".

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed ICDS-VII deals with Government grants; MEIS scrips are not government grants in the sense contemplated by ICDS-VII. It considered each sub-clause of section 28 relied upon by the Assessing Officer and found that factual and textual requirements (e.g., cash assistance, duty drawback, profit on transfer of DEPB/DFRC) did not match MEIS scrips. The Tribunal noted that book treatment (crediting proceeds to P&L) cannot by itself determine tax character.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ICDS-VII and the cited sub-clauses of section 28 do not apply to MEIS scrips on the facts; hence they cannot convert the scrip proceeds into business income.

Conclusions: ICDS-VII is not applicable and the referenced sub-clauses of section 28 do not capture MEIS scrip receipts; such receipts are not taxable as business income under these provisions.

Issue 4 - Interpretation of "by whatever name called" and application of ejusdem generis

Legal framework: Principle of ejusdem generis - general words following specific enumerations are confined to the same class as those specified; established by Supreme Court decisions.

Precedent Treatment: Courts have applied ejusdem generis to tax and statutory lists to construe general terms narrowly where appropriate.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the written submissions applying ejusdem generis: the general words "by whatever name called" qualify the specific enumerations (subsidy, grant, cash incentive, etc.) rather than expanding the independent term "assistance". Hence, ILscope of s.2(24)(xviii) is anchored to the listed kinds of governmental support, not to any non-analogous governmental "reward" scheme like MEIS.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ejusdem generis restricts "by whatever name called" to the enumerated kinds and does not broaden "assistance" to include MEIS rewards.

Conclusions: The appropriate interpretive rule confines s.2(24)(xviii) to items ejusdem generis with the specified words; MEIS does not fall within that class.

Issue 5 - Application of the "purpose test" (Ponni Sugars) to MEIS

Legal framework: Under the "purpose test", the nature of an incentive is determined by the object for which it is given - to enable running the business more profitably (revenue) or to set up/expand a unit/market (capital).

Precedent Treatment: The Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars applied the purpose test; Tribunals have applied same to export incentives and related schemes.

Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the purpose test, the Tribunal found MEIS scrips are intended to offset infrastructure inefficiencies and to expand export markets (market creation/expansion), not to subsidise recurring operating costs. Therefore, even if received periodically or measured by turnover, the underlying purpose is capital in nature.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the purpose test leads to treating MEIS proceeds as capital receipts.

Conclusions: The purpose test supports the capital characterisation of MEIS scrip proceeds; such receipts are not taxable as revenue.

Final Disposition (operative conclusion)

On the facts and materials before it, and applying statutory interpretation, the ejusdem generis principle, ICDS analysis, and the purpose test from binding precedent, The Tribunal concluded that receipts from sale/transfer of MEIS duty-credit scrips are capital receipts not falling within section 2(24)(xviii) or the cited provisions of section 28 or ICDS-VII, and consequently are not taxable as business income; the impugned additions were set aside.

---