2012 (12) TMI 725 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB - Central Excise Duty refund & Interest subsidy - Capital or revenue receipt - Held that - Following the decision of court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT and Another 2011 (1) TMI 394 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT the receipt of Central Excise Duty Refund and interest subsidy to be treated as a Capital Receipt as against its treatment as Revenue receipt by the A.O - Decided in the favour of the assessee. Transport Subsidy Held that - Transport subsidy is not derived from the activity of the industrial undertaking though it may be attributable to it and therefore, cannot be said to be treated as part of the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking - no deduction is available u/s 80IB on the amount of freight subsidy - order of A.O. is affirmed/confirmed. Treating interest as income derived from industrial undertaking - Held that - Following the decision of in case of M/s. Pandian Chemicals 2003 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT interest cannot be treated as income derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80IB ground of assessee is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Treatment of Central Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy as capital or revenue receipt.
2. Interpretation of judgments by Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court regarding receipts.
3. Application of purpose test in determining trading or capital receipt.
4. Tax effect on appeal below Rs. 3 lacs based on Supreme Court decision.
5. Treatment of excise duty refund, transport subsidy, and interest as income derived from industrial undertaking for deduction u/s 80IB.

Issue 1: Treatment of Central Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to treat Central Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts. The Revenue argued against the reliance on High Court judgments and Supreme Court decisions, questioning the test for distinguishing trading and capital receipts. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing precedents from the Jammu & Kashmir High Court and the Jurisdictional Court. The ITAT concluded that the receipts were rightly treated as capital receipts, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.

Issue 2: Interpretation of judgments by Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court
The ITAT analyzed the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the nature of receipts in the context of production incentives. The ITAT referred to specific cases such as Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugar, emphasizing the distinction between revenue and capital receipts. The ITAT aligned with the High Court's decision, supporting the treatment of certain receipts as capital rather than revenue, in line with established legal principles.

Issue 3: Application of purpose test in determining trading or capital receipt
The ITAT considered the application of the purpose test in distinguishing trading and capital receipts, as laid down by the Supreme Court. The ITAT reviewed the facts of the case, particularly the utilization of funds received, to determine if the purpose aligned with substantial expansion of the industry. By referencing relevant case law and judgments, the ITAT supported the CIT(A)'s decision based on the purpose test, highlighting the importance of the purpose behind the receipt in such determinations.

Issue 4: Tax effect on appeal below Rs. 3 lacs based on Supreme Court decision
The ITAT addressed the tax effect on the appeal, which was below Rs. 3 lacs, in accordance with a Supreme Court decision. Despite the lower tax impact, the appeal was filed following the Supreme Court's directive not to apply circulars automatically, especially in cases with potential cascading effects. This demonstrated adherence to judicial guidelines even in cases with relatively lower tax implications.

Issue 5: Treatment of excise duty refund, transport subsidy, and interest for deduction u/s 80IB
Regarding the treatment of excise duty refund, transport subsidy, and interest for deduction under section 80IB, the ITAT examined each component separately. The ITAT upheld the High Court's decision on excise duty refund as a capital receipt. For the transport subsidy, the ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoned order, citing relevant High Court decisions to deny the deduction under section 80IB. Similarly, the ITAT dismissed the claim related to interest income based on a Supreme Court ruling, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision against the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal based on the detailed analysis and alignment with established legal principles and judicial precedents.

← Previous Next →