9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1151 - AT - Income TaxCapital Incentive subsidy received for establishing industry in Backward area - whether is to be reduced from actual cost of asset? - Appellant prays to hold that Capital Subsidy is not to be reduced from Actual Cost - Disallowance of Depreciation by reducing Written down value of assets by subsidy received - Held that - The perusal of the Package Scheme of Incentive 1993 reflect that the scheme was formulated to give incentive for setting up the industries in certain belts of Maharashtra and for the purpose of working out the amount of subsidy though the cost of eligible investment was taken as the base but the said subsidy was not specifically intended to meet the cost of assets. In view thereof it could not be held that the incentive received by the assessee under the Package Scheme of 1993 in the form of subsidy was covered under provisions of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and consequently the subsidy amount was not to be reduced from the cost of the assets. Accordingly the Assessing Officer is directed not to reduce the value of the subsidy from the cost of assets while allowing depreciation on the said assets of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Capital Incentive Subsidy 2. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act 3. Applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Capital Incentive Subsidy: The primary issue was whether the 'Special Capital Incentive Subsidy' received by the assessee for establishing an industry in a backward area should be treated as a capital receipt or revenue receipt. The CIT(A) held that the subsidy was a capital receipt, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 632 (Bom). The Tribunal affirmed this view, noting that the subsidy was intended to promote the establishment of industries in underdeveloped areas, and thus, was capital in nature. This conclusion was supported by the Tribunal's prior decision in ACIT Vs. M/s. Endress + Hauser Flowtec (India) Pvt. Ltd., where a similar subsidy under the 1993 scheme was held to be a capital receipt. 2. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act: The Assessing Officer argued that since the assessee had claimed depreciation on the assets, the provisions of Section 41(1) were applicable, and the subsidy should be added as income. However, the CIT(A) rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Nector Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 314 ITR 314 (SC), which reversed the Bombay High Court's stance on a similar issue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue did not appeal against this finding, thus accepting that Section 41(1) was not applicable. 3. Applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act: The most contentious issue was whether Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) applied, necessitating the reduction of the subsidy from the cost of the assets for depreciation purposes. The CIT(A) applied this provision, stating that the value of fixed assets should be reduced by the subsidy amount, as per Explanation 10 inserted w.e.f. assessment year 1999-2000. The Tribunal, however, disagreed, emphasizing that the subsidy under the 1993 scheme was not specifically intended to meet the cost of assets but to promote industrial development in backward areas. The Tribunal referred to the decisions in DCIT Vs. Rasoi Ltd. and Sasisri Extractions Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which established that subsidies aimed at accelerating industrial development should not be reduced from the cost of assets under Explanation 10. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer not to reduce the subsidy amount from the cost of assets while calculating depreciation. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Special Capital Incentive Subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt and not subject to reduction from the cost of assets under Explanation 10 to Section 43(1). The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow depreciation on the full cost of the assets without reducing the subsidy amount.
|
