https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337692 The court concluded that the transport subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt, intended to promote industrial growth in backward regions, and therefore not taxable. The purpose test was applied to determine the nature of the subsidy, emphasizing the scheme's objective over accounting practices. Prior judgments supported the classification of subsidies for industrial development as capital receipts. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, disposing of the appeal without costs, as the subsidy aimed to stimulate economic activity rather than enhance profits. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337692 The court concluded that the transport subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt, intended to promote industrial growth in backward regions, and therefore not taxable. The purpose test was applied to determine the nature of the subsidy, emphasizing the scheme's objective over accounting practices. Prior judgments supported the classification of subsidies for industrial development as capital receipts. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, disposing of the appeal without costs, as the subsidy aimed to stimulate economic activity rather than enhance profits. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337692