2022 (10) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. We will address each appeal one by one. First A.Y.2007-08 4. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 (4) of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 14.11.2011 at its business/ office premises. The assessee filed original return of income on 28.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs. 49197161/-. Pursuant to the notice served u/s. 153A, the assessee filed its return of income on 09.09.2013 returning the same income of Rs. 49197161/-. 6. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings assessee filed a revised computation of income wherein it claimed deduction of the amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal is accordingly allowed. A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y.2012-13 13. The grievance of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 read as under :- 14. The grievance of the assessee for A.Y.2012-13 read as under :- 15. Since common grievance is involved in both the appeals they are disposed of as under. 16. As mentioned elsewhere a search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee on 14.11.2011 and the assessment for A.Y.2009-10 was initiated by the AO by serving notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act, therefore, pursuant to the search operation the impugned assessment was abated and proceedings u/s. 153 A were initiated. The original return filed on 29.09.2009 at the Nil income was repeated by the assessee by filing the same return of income in response....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreed that the basic nature of any subsidy is to be examined for the purpose but the purpose is decided mainly by utilization to subsidy. The CIT(A) concluded by holding "just because the scheme of West Bengal Government talks about generation of employment or development of the area does not make any incentive / subsidy as capital receipts in the hands of the assessee". 20. Before us the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the CIT(A) grossly erred in not understanding the scheme of subsidy. It is the say of the Counsel that there is no dispute whatsoever that the assessee is eligible for the West Bengal incentive scheme 2000 for its unit at Jangalpur Distt., Hawrah. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nued pursuant to the national policy. However, the state of West Bengal decided to introduce the West Bengal Incentive Scheme 2000 which also covered the district of Howrah and, therefore, the units of the assessee are eligible for the incentive scheme. It is provided that the industrial unit to get State capital investment subsidy on the investment made in the fixed capital depending on location with direct employment generation of 200 or more. The minimum investment qualified for special package of benefits as mega projects is Rs. 25 crores and it is provided that the waiver of electricity duty on electric consumption for production/ operation for 5 years. The 2000 scheme was generally be applicable to all large, medium, cottage and small....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icy discussed elsewhere, it can be safely concluded that the intention of the State Government of West Bengal behind providing incentives were to promote industrialization, development of State, Generation of Employment, being objects in larger public interest. 28. On identical set of facts the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ankit Metal and Power Limited 416 ITR 591 has considered a similar quarrel and held as under :- The assessee had filed original return o income treating the interest subsidy as revenue receipt, but during the assessment proceedings the assessee had rectified its mistake and claimed the aforesaid subsidies as capital receipt by filing a revised computation of income since the time limit for filing revised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra). CIT v. Ponni sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and the decision of our High Court in case of Rasoi Ltd. (supra) against which SLP has been dismissed. The mode of computation/form of subsidy is irrelevant. The mode of giving incentive is reimbursement of energy charges. The nature of subsidy depends on the purpose for which it is given. Hence the assessee draws support from the decisions already discussed earlier as the same principle will apply here. Thus, the entire reason behind receiving the subsidy is setting up of plant in the backward region of West Bengal, namely, Bankura. 25. Accordingly we hold the aforesaid incentive subsidies are 'capital receipts' and is not an 'income' liable to be taxed in relevant ass....