9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1723 - AT - Income TaxSales tax subsidy - Revenue receipt OR capital receipt - Held that - This issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for ay 2006-07 held the subsidy received by the assessee herein to be capital receipt.- Decided in favour of revenue Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that - No dividend was to be declared in view of the provisions of section 25 of Companies Act, 1956. Therefore it was not possible to receive any exempt income from this investment by the assessee. Once there was no exempt income then Sec 14A could not be invoked. Therefore we find force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and hold that Sec 14A could not have been invoked to make disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of sales tax subsidy as revenue receipt or capital receipt. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D concerning investments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Sales Tax Subsidy: During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the sales tax subsidy of Rs. 7,62,72,378/- received by the assessee as revenue income, following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries. The assessee contended that this subsidy should be treated as a capital receipt. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's action. On appeal, the Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided against the assessee in its own case for the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal referred to its previous order, which followed the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd., treating similar sales tax subsidies as revenue in nature for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that the subsidy was for setting up new units or expanding existing businesses, aligning with the Supreme Court's rulings in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., which classified such subsidies as capital receipts. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's reliance on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Birla VXL, as the assessee failed to demonstrate the similarity between the current scheme and the earlier scheme considered by the Gujarat High Court. Given the pending appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and following its earlier order, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is revenue in nature. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed investments in Bharuch Eco-Aqua Infrastructure Ltd. (BEIL) and mutual funds, invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D, and made a disallowance of Rs. 3,85,921/- out of interest and expenditure. On appeal, the assessee argued that the investment in BEIL was an old investment in a non-profit company formed under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, which would not generate any income. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention regarding mutual funds but upheld the disallowance concerning BEIL, restricting it to Rs. 1,09,281/-. Before the Tribunal, the assessee reiterated that BEIL, a non-profit company, was formed to comply with the Gujarat High Court's directives on environmental protection and would not yield any dividend income. The Tribunal reviewed the Articles of Association of BEIL, confirming that the company prohibits the payment of dividends as per Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. Since no exempt income could be received from this investment, Section 14A could not be invoked. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and held that the disallowance of Rs. 1,09,281/- under Section 14A was not justified. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance under Section 14A but against the assessee on the classification of the sales tax subsidy. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.1.2014.
|
