https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89238 ITAT adjudicated two primary issues: IPO expenditure and excise duty subsidy classification. On IPO expenditure, the tribunal allowed 92% as revenue expenditure under section 35D, permitting capital portion of share issue expenses. Regarding excise duty subsidy, the tribunal determined the receipt as capital in nature, not taxable, based on legislative intent and judicial precedents. The tribunal rejected revenue's contention, holding that absence of explicit "exemption" terminology in Section 2(24)(xviii) precludes treating the subsidy as revenue receipt. Consequently, the excise duty exemption was classified as capital receipt for Assessment Year 2016-17, not chargeable to tax, and excluded from Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) computation under Section 115JB. en-us Mon, 09 Jun 2025 07:29:45 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 07:29:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89238 ITAT adjudicated two primary issues: IPO expenditure and excise duty subsidy classification. On IPO expenditure, the tribunal allowed 92% as revenue expenditure under section 35D, permitting capital portion of share issue expenses. Regarding excise duty subsidy, the tribunal determined the receipt as capital in nature, not taxable, based on legislative intent and judicial precedents. The tribunal rejected revenue's contention, holding that absence of explicit "exemption" terminology in Section 2(24)(xviii) precludes treating the subsidy as revenue receipt. Consequently, the excise duty exemption was classified as capital receipt for Assessment Year 2016-17, not chargeable to tax, and excluded from Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) computation under Section 115JB. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 09 Jun 2025 07:29:45 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89238