1996 (6) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unfold the limited character of controversy. The assessee received the amount as industrial subsidy. The factual matrix shows that this amount was Rs. 1,20,407. The amount was received by the assessee as a subsidy in regard to the development of his industrial concern. The condition in regard thereto was that in the event of the assessee not being able to have benefit in the process of development resulting into the closure of the industrial activity altogether, then and then only the amount was refundable and in default liable to be recovered from him. The assessment year is 1978-79. There is no dispute that the amount was received by the assessee during the assessment year in question as subsidy. The Income-tax Officer treated it to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of five years of production from the date of the subsidy or the commencement of the production of the unit, whichever is later. In other words, the position that the amount of subsidy has to be understood as wealth was not disturbed in any fashion and the only question that was argued was whether it became the wealth at the time of the receipt or it could be understood as wealth five years later, It is, in this context, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the nature of the grant of subsidy. Subsidy was not refundable at all and can be understood to be refundable only in the event of the unit going out of production within a period of five years as stated hereinbefore. In the above situation, the Tribunal brushed aside the contention because ....