TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....power generation undertaking and (b) non-taxability of fertilizer subsidy received by the assessee claiming the same as capital in nature. He submitted that the Tribunal, vide its order dated 31.7.2020 passed in ITA No.5077/Mum/2017 and subsequently in the order dated 08-03- 2021 passed in M A No.256/Mum/2020, admitted the above said additional grounds and restored both the issues to the file of the AO. In the set aside proceedings, the AO allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of power generation undertaking. However, he held that the fertiliser subsidy (Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS)) received by the assessee constituted revenue receipts and not capital receipts. Accordingly, he rejected the claim of the assessee. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee and directed the AO to delete the assessment of fertilizer subsidy. Hence the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. In Ground No.1 and 2, the revenue has raised a contention that the Tribunal was not right in admitting additional grounds raised through a letter. It is contended that the assessee could have raised the new claims only through revised return of income, as per the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before us that the subsidy given to the manufacturers under NBS Scheme was to give concession to the farmers and reduce the MRP in order to bring down the manufacturing cost. Whole scheme was designed to increase the fertilizer production and utilization among the farmers by making available at the affordable price to the farmers. Since it is linked to reduction of price in manufacturing, this subsidy can only be classified under revenue not capital. However, we notice that the purpose of introduction of NBS scheme and modification of various Govt. schemes over the period is due to the fact that (refer impact of concession scheme) the growth of fertilizer industry was stagnated with virtually no investments over the years in urea sector, this industry had no incentive to invest on modernization and for increasing efficiency. The industry had no incentive to focus on farmers leading to poor farm extension services. The policy was introduced to reduce the burden on subsidy outgo in the hands of the Government which increased exponentially over the years. This policy is introduced considering all the issues relating to agriculture productivity, balanced fertilization and growth of ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e uphold the same. 7. Ground No.5 and 6 urged by the Revenue is challenging the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in excluding the fertilizer subsidy for computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 7.1. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., [ITA No. 1132 of 2014, dt. 04-01-2017] and also the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Alok Industries Ltd., vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1017/Mum/2017, dt. 21-05-2018 and held that the capital receipts should not be included for the purpose of computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the binding decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by him on this issue. 8. We shall now take up the appeal filed for AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15. In these three years, the Revenue is challenging the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in excluding the incentives received under Status Holder Incentive Scrips (SHIS) and fertilizersubsid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the company connected to the export of goods and mercantile. It is linked with capital in nature. The CIT(A)has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. Ponni Sugars& Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.47/MDS/2016 dated 17.05.2016 and Sutlej Textiles & Industries Ltd. (ITA. No. 5142/Del/2013) and M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA.No. 687/Kol/2010. These issues have duly been examined and discussed by CIT(A) in his order. The copy of scheme has also been filed by Id. Representative of the assessee for examination. It is necessary to advert the contents on record: - 3.14... 3.15... 3.16 Status Holders Incentive Scrip (SHIS) 3.16.1 With an objective to promote investment in upgradation of technology of some specified sectors as dated in Para 3.16.4 below, Status Holders shall be entitled to incentive scrip @ 1% of FOB value of exports made during 2009-10, 2010-11 and during 2011-12, of these specified sectors, in the form of duty credit. The Status Holders of the additional sectors listed in the Para 3.10.8 of HBPvi 2009-14 (RE-2010) shall be eligib....