9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1629 - AT - Income TaxInterest subsidy granted under TUF scheme - whether revenue or capital in nature - Held that - We do not find any merit in the order passed by the lower authorities treating the subsidy so received as revenue receipts. Accordingly the AO is directed to treat the subsidiary in all the years under consideration are capital in nature. See Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs CIT (1997 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of interest subsidy under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUF Scheme) - whether revenue or capital in nature. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Interest Subsidy under TUF Scheme: Background and Contentions: The assessee received a subsidy from the Central Government under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUF Scheme). The primary contention was whether this subsidy should be considered capital or revenue in nature. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the subsidy was revenue in nature, referencing decisions in the cases of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. and Sahnay Steel & Pressworks Ltd. The AO reasoned that the subsidy was for interest payment, which is a revenue expenditure, not for the repayment of a loan, which would be capital expenditure. CIT(A) Observations: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the interest subsidy was credited to the assessee's profit and loss account as income. The CIT(A) emphasized that the subsidy aimed at improving competitiveness and long-term viability, thus enhancing profitability, making it a revenue receipt. The CIT(A) referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., which stated that subsidies aimed at improving competitiveness are revenue receipts. Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that the interest subsidy was a capital receipt, intended to encourage the acquisition of technologically advanced textile machinery. The subsidy was not meant to supplement the unit's profit but to assist in acquiring new capital assets. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decisions in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., which emphasized the purpose test in determining the nature of a subsidy. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal examined the purpose of the TUF Scheme, noting that it aimed at modernizing the textile industry through technology upgradation by providing subsidized loans for acquiring new machinery. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of the subsidy was to assist in acquiring capital assets, making it a capital receipt. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions, which highlighted that the purpose of the subsidy is crucial in determining its nature, not the mode of payment or the timing of the subsidy. Precedent Cases: The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in Sh. Sham Lal Bansal, which held that interest subsidy under the TUF Scheme is capital in nature. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., which reiterated that the purpose of the subsidy determines its nature. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the interest subsidy under the TUF Scheme was capital in nature, aimed at assisting in the acquisition of new machinery for modernization. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to treat the subsidy as a capital receipt. Final Judgment: The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the AO was directed to treat the subsidy as capital in nature for the assessment years under consideration. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2015.
|
