2019 (1) TMI 1978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntive received by the assessee from Govt. of Maharashtra in the form of Octroi Refund of Rs.1,68,52,440/- as capital subsidy. 2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in treating Octroi refund as capital subsidy without appreciating the fact that it was given for as an assistance for carrying on the business of the assessee and not for acquiring a capital asset. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik erred in ignoring the facts that the assessee company had not filed any revised return of income to make such claim that Octroi refund received from Govt. of Maharashtra is capital receipt and had made the said claim only during assessment proceedin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of CIT Vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Vs. CIT 364 ITR 88 and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 held Octroi refund as capital in nature. 5. The ld. Authorized Representative further submitted that assessee received Octroi refund incentive under Maharashtra Government Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. The scheme is similar to Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. in ITA No.2312/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 decided on 03-08-2018 following the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 held that subsidy received by the assessee therein is capital in nature. The case of the assessee is squarel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar 2012-13 has received subsidy of Rs.13,37,61,000/- up to 31-03-2012 and the balance amount of Rs.2,36,05,000 / - is stated to be receivable as on 31-03-2012. The subsidy was sanctioned to the assessee under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 of the State Government, against investment of Rs.26.77 crores made by the assessee in land, factory building, plant and machinery, electrical installation etc. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee by following the order of Tribunal in the case of M/ s. John Deere Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner ....