9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1336 - HC - Income TaxSales-tax subsidy - nature of receipt - whether is a capital receipt which is not exigible to tax? - Held that - Tax liability we have considered original purpose for which the Scheme has been floated by the State Government by going through the Scheme. At the relevant time the State Government need employment generation therefore it has come out with the Generation of Employment for which capital investment was necessary and therefore to boost capital investment scheme has been floated for exemption of sales tax which can be capitalised against the capital which has been invested against the loss of interest which they have made investment apart from 1.50 crores and over a period of 11 years they have to realised the investment made. As gone through the Scheme and relevant Budget Speech of the Finance Minster and all other documents and more particularly the tribunal while considering the Scheme has analyised completely in para no.5.13 and has come to the conclusion in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Pony Sugar ( 2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT). Tribunal has not committed any error and view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is nothing but capital investment by investing huge amount of 1.57 crores. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee in the form of Sales Tax Exemption was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Nature of Sales Tax Subsidy (Capital Receipt vs. Revenue Receipt) The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee, amounting to ?18,48,85,506/-, as either a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The court framed the substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee... was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt ignoring the basic purpose for which the same was given..." Arguments by the Appellant: - The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to the well-reasoned orders passed by the assessing officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. - The AO's order emphasized that the exemption was linked to expansion activities, which involved increasing fixed capital investment and production capacity. - The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, arguing that the subsidy was for operational purposes and thus should be treated as a revenue receipt. Arguments by the Respondent: - The respondent contended that the subsidy scheme was designed to encourage industrial development and capital investment in the state, thus qualifying it as a capital receipt. - The respondent cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., which emphasized the purpose test to determine the nature of the subsidy. - The respondent also referred to various high court judgments, including those of Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat, which supported the view that similar subsidies were capital receipts. Tribunal's Observations: - The Tribunal considered the eligibility criteria for the subsidy, which included fresh capital investment and expansion of existing units. - The Tribunal noted that the scheme aimed to promote industrial development and employment generation, aligning with the purpose test established by the Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars. - The Tribunal concluded that the subsidy was intended for capital investment and thus should be treated as a capital receipt. Court's Analysis: - The court examined the original purpose of the subsidy scheme, which was to generate employment through capital investment. - The court reviewed the scheme's terms, the Finance Minister's budget speech, and other relevant documents. - The court agreed with the Tribunal's analysis that the subsidy was for capital investment, not for operational purposes. Conclusion: - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. - The issue was resolved in favor of the assessee and against the department, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Final Judgment: - The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's view that the sales tax subsidy was a capital receipt was upheld.
|
