https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421860 The High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to determine the nature of the subsidy as capital or revenue. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for an independent assessment. The Court validated the Commissioner's intervention under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, stating it was in the interest of Revenue. The A.O. was directed to issue a reasoned order independently of the Commissioner's observations. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, reiterating the requirement for an unbiased assessment by the A.O. to determine the subsidy's nature. en-us Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jun 2026 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421860 The High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to determine the nature of the subsidy as capital or revenue. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for an independent assessment. The Court validated the Commissioner's intervention under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, stating it was in the interest of Revenue. The A.O. was directed to issue a reasoned order independently of the Commissioner's observations. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, reiterating the requirement for an unbiased assessment by the A.O. to determine the subsidy's nature. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421860