9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1856 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA(i) - Sales Tax Benefit as inextricably linked to the industrial undertaking and was integral part of the profit derived from power generation by the said undertaking eligible for deduction - HELD THAT - In the view of our above findings and the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2017 (12) TMI 1758 - ITAT PUNE we hold that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is revenue in nature and not eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Accordingly, the second question in appeals is answered in negative and against the assessee. The impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals by Revenue are allowed We find that the facts in the present set of appeals are identical and hence, the controversy whether the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) on Sales Tax Benefit‟ received from State Government is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid decision of Tribunal, we hold that the assessee is not eligible for claiming benefit of deduction u/s.80IA(4) in respect of Sales Tax Benefit‟ received from the State Government. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sales Tax Benefit of ?22,54,500/- is an integral part of the profit derived from power generation and eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(i). 2. Whether the Sales Tax Benefit granted to the appellant is part of a beneficial scheme to promote wind energy and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(i). 3. Whether the Sales Tax Benefit received is of a capital nature and not liable to Income Tax. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Sales Tax Benefit for Deduction under Section 80IA(i): The appellant contended that the Sales Tax Benefit received was inextricably linked to the industrial undertaking and integral to the profit derived from power generation, thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(i). However, the Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant’s own case for subsequent assessment years, where it was held that the Sales Tax subsidy was a capital receipt. The Tribunal reiterated that the "Sales Tax Benefit" was not an operational subsidy but an incentive subsidy, not affecting the profits of the business directly. Consequently, it was concluded that the Sales Tax subsidy did not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA(i). 2. Sales Tax Benefit as Part of a Beneficial Scheme: The appellant argued that the Sales Tax Benefit was part of a State Government scheme to promote wind energy and should therefore be eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(i). The Tribunal, however, noted that the scheme’s primary aim was to support units to perform more efficiently and profitably rather than to create new assets. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit was linked to achieving operational efficiencies and not merely to the commencement of generation. Therefore, the Sales Tax Benefit was considered a revenue receipt and not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(i). 3. Nature of Sales Tax Benefit: The appellant raised an additional ground claiming that the Sales Tax Benefit was of a capital nature and not liable to Income Tax. The Tribunal, referring to its earlier decision, held that the Sales Tax subsidy was revenue in nature. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from other cases where subsidies were deemed capital receipts, emphasizing that the Sales Tax subsidy in question did not reduce the cost of production but was an incentive to enhance operational efficiency. Thus, it was concluded that the Sales Tax subsidy was revenue in nature and not a capital receipt. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Sales Tax Benefit received by the appellant was a revenue receipt and not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(i). The Tribunal reiterated its earlier findings that the Sales Tax subsidy was an incentive for operational efficiency and not directly linked to the profits of the industrial undertaking. Consequently, the grounds of appeal and the additional ground raised by the appellant were dismissed. Order Pronouncement: The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2019.
|
