Tax benefits on amalgamated power undertaking under s.80-IA upheld; s.14A disallowance capped; subsidy issue remanded

ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed Revenue's appeal and partly allowed assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. On s.80-IA, the Tribunal, following its decisions in earlier years in assessee's own case, held that the power undertaking acquired on amalgamation qualifies for deduction, as the tax benefits available to the amalgamating company extend to the amalgamated entity; disallowance under Explanation 2 to s.80-IA(3) was therefore rejected. On s.14A r.w. Rule 8D, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to the actual exempt dividend income. On the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme interest subsidy, the matter was remanded to the AO to re-examine its taxability as capital receipt after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Deduction under section 80-IA - Whether the undertaking engaged in power generation was eligible for deduction under section 80-IA where the plant and machinery were originally installed by an amalgamating company and largely comprised of old machinery, in the light of Explanation 2 to section 80-IA(3) and section 80-IA(12).

1.2 Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D - Whether disallowance of expenditure under section 14A could exceed the amount of exempt dividend income actually earned during the year.

1.3 Taxability of TUFS subsidies and permissibility of additional claim in cross-objection - (a) Whether interest subsidy and power subsidy received under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) constituted capital receipts not chargeable to tax; and (b) whether such claim, though not made in the original return and arising in a reassessment context, could be entertained by the Tribunal and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Deduction under section 80-IA for power generation undertaking

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer invoked Explanation 2 to section 80-IA(3) on the footing that the power plant was set up by transfer of old and previously used machinery exceeding the prescribed threshold, and that the assessee relied on section 80-IA(12), which governs the operation of deduction in cases of transfer of an eligible undertaking on amalgamation.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Tribunal recorded that the power plant was originally installed by the amalgamating company and transferred to the assessee under a court-approved scheme of amalgamation, and that similar disallowance had been made and deleted in earlier assessment years on the same facts.

2.3 The Tribunal referred to its own coordinate Bench decisions in the assessee's earlier years, including assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 and 2014-15, where it had been held that: (i) the entire plant was new when acquired by the amalgamating company; (ii) the machinery had not been used prior to 01.04.2005; (iii) the deduction under section 80-IA(4) was allowed in the first year of claim (assessment year 2009-10), evidencing satisfaction of all statutory conditions; and (iv) under section 80-IA(12), once the amalgamating company was eligible, the same deduction flowed to the amalgamated company on transfer of the undertaking.

2.4 Those earlier orders further held that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the deduction merely on a presumption that the machinery was old without bringing cogent evidence on record and without rebutting the fact that the claim had been allowed in the first year, and that Explanation 2 to section 80-IA(3) had been incorrectly applied ignoring section 80-IA(12).

2.5 For the year under consideration, the Tribunal found the facts identical to the earlier years and that the Revenue had not shown any distinguishing feature or contrary authority to depart from the earlier coordinate Bench view.

Conclusions

2.6 The Tribunal held that the undertaking continued to be eligible for deduction under section 80-IA and that Explanation 2 to section 80-IA(3) did not operate to deny the claim in the circumstances of amalgamation governed by section 80-IA(12). The disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA was therefore unsustainable, and the Revenue's ground challenging deletion of the disallowance was dismissed.

Issue 2 - Scope of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D

Legal framework (as discussed)

3.1 The Assessing Officer applied section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii), computed disallowance at 1% of average monthly investment and made a disallowance far exceeding the exempt dividend income. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court decision holding that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income.

Interpretation and reasoning

3.2 The Tribunal noted the factual finding that the assessee had earned exempt dividend income of only Rs. 670 during the year and that it had contended that investments were made out of own funds, including substantial strategic investments, with no use of borrowed funds for such investments.

3.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) had followed several judicial precedents, including jurisdictional High Court rulings, to hold that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income of the year and that the Explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2022 was to be applied prospectively.

3.4 The Tribunal endorsed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s approach and specifically relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd., which had affirmed that in absence of exempt income, or where it is minimal, disallowance cannot surpass such exempt income.

Conclusions

3.5 The Tribunal upheld the restriction of disallowance to the actual exempt dividend income of Rs. 670 and confirmed deletion of the balance disallowance. The Revenue's ground on this issue was dismissed.

Issue 3 - TUFS interest and power subsidies: nature of receipt and permissibility of additional claim in cross-objection

Legal framework (as discussed)

4.1 The Tribunal, while dealing with the cross-objection, referred to its own earlier order in the assessee's case for another assessment year, and to a detailed coordinate Bench decision in a similar case, in which the following were discussed:

(a) The Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) was introduced to catalyse investment and technology upgradation in the textile sector, with subsidies (including interest reimbursement) being granted to promote sustainable growth and long-term viability of the industry.

(b) The jurisprudential test distinguishing capital and revenue subsidies based on the purpose of the subsidy, as laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune, CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., and CIT v. Sham Lal Bansal.

(c) The insertion of section 2(24)(xviii) by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from assessment year 2016-17, bringing specified subsidies and similar assistance into the scope of "income," subject to exclusion where such subsidy is adjusted in determining "actual cost" under section 43(1) Explanation 10.

(d) The power of the Tribunal to entertain additional grounds in a cross-objection, and to admit new legal claims, as recognised in prior coordinate Bench decisions (including in the context of cross-objections and additional grounds) and Supreme Court judgments such as Goetze (India) Ltd. and NTPC Ltd.

(e) The treatment of claims raised in reassessment proceedings where the initial processing was under section 143(1), with reference to the High Court view that reassessment in such a situation is effectively a first assessment, permitting consideration of all legitimate claims, even if not made in the original return.

Interpretation and reasoning

4.2 The assessee had received interest subsidy and power subsidy under TUFS, treated them as income while filing the return, and later claimed, by way of cross-objection, that such receipts were capital in nature and ought either not to be taxed or to be reduced from the cost of plant and machinery.

4.3 The Tribunal recorded that in an earlier year involving the same assessee, a coordinate Bench had already admitted an additional ground on identical TUFS subsidy and, following another detailed coordinate Bench decision in a similar case, had:

(a) Applied the "purpose test" to hold that TUFS interest subsidy, granted to encourage investment in plant and machinery and technology upgradation, was capital in nature and not a revenue receipt;

(b) Noted that the subsequent insertion of section 2(24)(xviii) with effect from assessment year 2016-17 reinforced that such capital subsidies were outside the tax net in earlier years;

(c) Nonetheless remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the factual aspects, including quantum and documentation, and to grant relief accordingly.

4.4 That earlier order had also considered the legal permissibility of entertaining such a new claim in proceedings arising from reassessment and had, relying on the Karnataka High Court decision in Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. DCIT, held that where the original proceeding was only an intimation under section 143(1), the reassessment acts as a de novo assessment enabling consideration of fresh claims.

4.5 For the year under consideration, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the similarity of facts or contest applicability of the earlier coordinate Bench decision in the assessee's own case on TUFS subsidies.

4.6 Respecting judicial discipline, the Tribunal followed its own earlier order, holding that the same legal reasoning on the capital nature of TUFS subsidies and the permissibility of admitting the claim through cross-objection applied to the current year.

Conclusions

4.7 The Tribunal admitted the assessee's claim in the cross-objection regarding interest subsidy and power subsidy received under TUFS as a legal ground.

4.8 It remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions to:

(a) Verify the factual correctness and quantum of the TUFS interest and power subsidies;

(b) Treat such subsidies in accordance with law and the principles laid down in the cited coordinate Bench and higher court decisions, including their capital nature and interaction, if any, with section 2(24)(xviii) and section 43(1); and

(c) Grant appropriate relief after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.9 The cross-objection was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues on TUFS subsidies left open for determination by the Assessing Officer in line with the Tribunal's directions.

---