2017 (3) TMI 951 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IC computation - amount of interest subsidy received by assessee during the year, in pursuance to scheme of the Government - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd 2016 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT held that if, cash assistance received or receivable against export schemes are included as being income under the head Profit & Gains of business or profession , it is obvious that subsidies which go to reimbursement of cost in the production of goods of a particular business would also have to be included under the head profit & gains of business or profession , and not under the head of income from other sources. The facts of the case before us are that the impugned amount was received back by the assessee from banks under the scheme of Ministry of Textile in respect of reimbursement out of the actual interest first paid to the assessee to the banks. These facts have not been disputed by the Ld. DR before us. Under these circumstances, we find that judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the issues involved. Thus, we find no need for making interference in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) wherein claim made by the assessee was allowed by Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of deduction u/s 80IC on interest subsidy received by the assessee.
2. Interpretation of interest subsidy as income for computing deduction u/s 80-IC.
3. Application of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts in similar cases.

Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) directing the AO to include interest subsidy for computing deduction u/s 80-IC. The revenue argued that the source of subsidy is the scheme of the Government, not the eligible undertaking. The appellant prayed for setting aside the CIT(A) order. During the hearing, the Ld. Counsel of assessee highlighted that the issue involved the allowability of deduction u/s 80IC on the interest subsidy received. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case.

Issue 2: The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80-IC on the interest subsidy received by the assessee, stating that it was not income derived by the undertaking. The assessee explained that the subsidy was a reimbursement of interest paid to banks, reducing operational costs. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the submissions, citing relevant case laws and accounting standards. The issue was found in favor of the assessee based on the judgment of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, and the claim was allowed.

Issue 3: The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. affirmed that subsidies reimbursing production costs are to be included under 'profit & gains of business or profession'. The facts of the case aligned with this principle, and the Ld. CIT(A) decision was upheld, considering the previous rulings. The judgment provided clarity, and the order of the CIT(A) was maintained, dismissing the grounds raised by the revenue in the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 80-IC on the interest subsidy received by the assessee was upheld based on relevant legal interpretations and judgments.