https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411404 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeal in its entirety. Regarding the allowability of Education Cess as an expenditure, the Tribunal found that Education Cess should be treated as an allowable expenditure based on relevant court decisions and circulars, rejecting the Revenue's argument that it should be disallowed as a tax under Section 40(a)(ii). Concerning the nature and taxability of Fertilizer Subsidy, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the subsidy is capital in nature, aligning with the purpose test and judicial precedents, despite the Revenue's contention that it should be taxed as a revenue receipt. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411404 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeal in its entirety. Regarding the allowability of Education Cess as an expenditure, the Tribunal found that Education Cess should be treated as an allowable expenditure based on relevant court decisions and circulars, rejecting the Revenue's argument that it should be disallowed as a tax under Section 40(a)(ii). Concerning the nature and taxability of Fertilizer Subsidy, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the subsidy is capital in nature, aligning with the purpose test and judicial precedents, despite the Revenue's contention that it should be taxed as a revenue receipt. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411404