TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received of Rs. 1,26,09,361/- as capital receipt in contradiction to the assessee's own claim or revenue receipts made in the income-tax return. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee himself had acknowledged the fact that the incentive received was of revenue nature while offering part of the operational incentive received by it under the scheme in its return of income and hence erred in directing the AO to consider the sum of Rs. 1,26,09,361/- offered in the return of income by the assessee as revenue receipt to be treated as capital receipt and hence not taxable. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preciating the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT II Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) (Guj) wherein identical issue has been dealt with and decided in favour of the revenue. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 on the issue of allowability of employer's contribution to funds for welfare of employees in terms of section 43B(b) wherein it has been specifically clarified in para 5 viz. "It is clarified that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36 ( 1 )(va) of the IT Act." 8. The appellant craves to leave, add, amend or alter the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.26 crores which was part of the Capital Subsidy and the same be removed from the income offered by the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) and rejected the claim of assessee. No other addition was made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the first issue which was raised by the assessee was in respect of subsidy received from Government of Maharashtra for setting up a mega unit under the Industrial Promotional Scheme, 2007 and claim of the assessee that the said subsidy was the capital receipt. The assessee pointed that though in the return of income it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 8. We find that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2312/PUN/2016 relating to assessment year 2012-13, vide order dated 03.08.2018 and the Tribunal has allowed the plea of the assessee that the subsidy sanctioned to the assessee under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 of the State Government to the tune of Rs. 13.37 crores was against the investment of Rs. 26.77 crores in land, factory building, plant and machinery, electrical installation etc. The Tribunal vide para 5 also noted that balance sum of Rs. 2.36 crores was receivable as on 31.03.2012. The Tribunal in turn placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. John Deere Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.....