Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Tools

We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Tools

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (3) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erest subsidy of Rs. 1,34,45,475forcomputing deduction u/s 801C without appreciating that the source of subsidy is the scheme of Government and not the eligible undertaking for being considered for the purpose of deduction u/s 801C. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred in directing the AO to include interest subsidy for computing deduction u/s 80-IC without appreciating that interest subsidy being a receipt from Government under a scheme cannot be said to be income, the source of which is the industrial undertaking." "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the C1T(A) erred in directing the AO to include interest subsidy for computing deduction u/s 801C without considering ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ties as well as aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The brief background is that during the year assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn. It had a manufacturing unit at SIDCUL, Rudrapur, (Uttrakhand) and claimed benefit of deduction u/s 80-IC in the written filed by him. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noted by the A.O. that assessee credited in its profit & loss account various items under the head other income which included TUFS interest subsidy amounting to Rs. 1,34,45,475/-. As per Assessing Officer, deduction 80-IC was not allowable on the said amount since this income could not be said to be derived by the undertaking of the assessee. The assessee submitted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to 1,34,45,475/- received back by the Assessee from banks under the scheme of the 'Ministry of Textile, it was submitted that the said amount is not in the nature of income and is merely re-imbursement out of the actual interest first paid by the Assessee to the Banks As per the scheme of the Ministry of Textile, the Assessee is entitled to receive back 5% of the interest actually paid by the Assessee to the Banks That the said reimbursement of interest would only reduce the interest cost of the Assessee already incurred by it and the same cannot be termed as any. income earned by the assessee. That the Ministry has made such mechanism to claim interest reimbursement, whereby the Assessee is first required to pay the amount of inter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....perational cost of the Assessee and thereby have dirt and first degree nexus with the profits. derived by the undertaking. Reliance was placed in the case of. CIT Vs. 1. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 2. Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 235 [Gauhati] That the case law cited, and relied upon by the AO being CIT vs Gheria Oil.Grarnudyog Workers Welfare Association 330 ITR 117 (2011) has also been referred to and considered while settling the above ratio in the said judgment reported in [2013] .356 ITR 235 supra. Further, the said case law has been given on the basis of interpretation on. the said issue by the Hon'ble Supreme 'Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd v CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC); CIT v Rajararn Maize Products [....