https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341946 The Tribunal held that the subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra by the assessee was a capital receipt for expanding the industry and accelerating investment, aligning with the purpose test for determining the nature of the subsidy. Previous tribunal decisions supported this view, and the Finance Act, 2015, did not apply retrospectively to make such subsidies taxable for the assessment year in question. As two possible views existed, and the Assessing Officer had taken one view, the CIT's order under section 263 was set aside, and the subsidy was deemed not chargeable to tax. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:22:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341946 The Tribunal held that the subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra by the assessee was a capital receipt for expanding the industry and accelerating investment, aligning with the purpose test for determining the nature of the subsidy. Previous tribunal decisions supported this view, and the Finance Act, 2015, did not apply retrospectively to make such subsidies taxable for the assessment year in question. As two possible views existed, and the Assessing Officer had taken one view, the CIT's order under section 263 was set aside, and the subsidy was deemed not chargeable to tax. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341946