https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351474 The tribunal upheld the treatment of a subsidy as capital in nature, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It ruled that the subsidy was received for setting up an industry, making it a capital receipt. Regarding the addition of interest on account of capitalization, the tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for further examination. Additionally, it modified the deletion of administrative expenses, requiring expenses related to different business units to be treated accordingly. The tribunal affirmed the reduction of the subsidy from fixed assets, dismissing the assessee's challenge. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the assessee's appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Nov 2017 13:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351474 The tribunal upheld the treatment of a subsidy as capital in nature, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It ruled that the subsidy was received for setting up an industry, making it a capital receipt. Regarding the addition of interest on account of capitalization, the tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for further examination. Additionally, it modified the deletion of administrative expenses, requiring expenses related to different business units to be treated accordingly. The tribunal affirmed the reduction of the subsidy from fixed assets, dismissing the assessee's challenge. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the assessee's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351474