https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337822 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to treat the subsidy received under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme as a capital receipt for the relevant assessment years. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the subsidy was capital in nature. The judgment clarified the treatment of such subsidies, distinguishing between capital and revenue receipts based on the subsidy's purpose and impact on business operations. The decision was supported by a thorough analysis of relevant case laws and scheme objectives. en-us Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337822 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to treat the subsidy received under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme as a capital receipt for the relevant assessment years. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the subsidy was capital in nature. The judgment clarified the treatment of such subsidies, distinguishing between capital and revenue receipts based on the subsidy's purpose and impact on business operations. The decision was supported by a thorough analysis of relevant case laws and scheme objectives. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337822