2018 (4) TMI 1928 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of receipt - Subsidies received from the Government under different schemes - Revenue or capital receipts - HELD THAT - In the present case it is noticed that a similar issue has been adjudicated by this Bench in assessee s own case 2015 (7) TMI 515 - ITAT DELHI held that subsidy received under the TUF scheme is in the nature of capital receipt. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the subsidies received from the Government under different schemes should be treated as capital receipts.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of Subsidies as Capital Receipts

Background:
The department appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which treated the subsidies received by the assessee from the Government under different schemes as capital receipts. The subsidies in question included:
- Interest subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme: Rs. 1,06,12,610/-
- 3% Central Interest subsidy on working capital loans: Rs. 3,61,15,924/-
- 4%/5% Interest subsidy on Term Loans under Technology Upgradation Fund (TUF) Scheme: Rs. 26,34,93,534/-
- Insurance subsidy under Central Government Scheme: Rs. 42,72,126/-

Assessment Officer’s Decision:
The AO disallowed the subsidies, treating them as revenue receipts, citing that they were brought to tax in earlier assessment orders.

CIT(A)’s Decision:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the subsidies were capital in nature. The CIT(A) relied on Supreme Court decisions in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugar, emphasizing the "purpose test" to determine the nature of the subsidy. The CIT(A) noted that the subsidies were granted for promoting industrial development, employment generation, and technological upgradation, thus qualifying as capital receipts.

Tribunal’s Analysis:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the subsidies were capital receipts based on the purpose for which they were granted. The Tribunal referred to the following key points:

1. Interest Subsidy under Central Interest Subsidy Scheme, 2002:
- The scheme aimed to accelerate industrial development and create employment in Jammu & Kashmir.
- The Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys held that such subsidies were capital receipts.

2. 2.5% Capital Investment Subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003:
- The scheme aimed to promote investment and employment in Rajasthan.
- The subsidy was linked to capital investment and additional wages, thus considered a capital receipt.

3. 5% Interest Subsidy under TUF Scheme:
- The scheme aimed at technological upgradation in the textile industry.
- The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Shamlal Bansal held that subsidies under the TUF scheme were capital receipts.

Conclusion:
The ITAT concluded that the subsidies received by the assessee were capital receipts, applying the purpose test as laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal dismissed the department’s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.

Final Decision:
The appeal of the department was dismissed, and the subsidies were confirmed as capital receipts not liable to tax.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the court on 12/04/2018.