<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 182 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784426</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether incentives received under the State &quot;Mega Projects&quot; scheme were capital receipts. The Tribunal held the benefits (electricity duty and stamp duty exemptions and industrial promotion subsidy linked to VAT/CST payable) were not directly or indirectly relatable to acquisition of fixed assets; hence Explanation 10 to s.43(1) did not apply and the receipt was taxable as income under s.2(24)(xviii), deciding against the assessee. On employees&#039; PF/ESIC contributions deposited beyond the statutory due dates, the Tribunal upheld taxability under s.2(24)(x) and disallowance under s.36(1)(va), but remanded the assessee&#039;s &quot;advance deposit&quot; plea for verification. The duty drawback understatement addition was restored to the AO for reconciliation. CPC&#039;s s.143(1)(a)(ii) adjustment treating the subsidy as income was upheld due to an apparent mismatch in the return, and the CIT(A) was reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2026 12:26:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 182 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784426</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether incentives received under the State &quot;Mega Projects&quot; scheme were capital receipts. The Tribunal held the benefits (electricity duty and stamp duty exemptions and industrial promotion subsidy linked to VAT/CST payable) were not directly or indirectly relatable to acquisition of fixed assets; hence Explanation 10 to s.43(1) did not apply and the receipt was taxable as income under s.2(24)(xviii), deciding against the assessee. On employees&#039; PF/ESIC contributions deposited beyond the statutory due dates, the Tribunal upheld taxability under s.2(24)(x) and disallowance under s.36(1)(va), but remanded the assessee&#039;s &quot;advance deposit&quot; plea for verification. The duty drawback understatement addition was restored to the AO for reconciliation. CPC&#039;s s.143(1)(a)(ii) adjustment treating the subsidy as income was upheld due to an apparent mismatch in the return, and the CIT(A) was reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>