2020 (11) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Additions towards Capital Grants Subsidies and Consumers' Contribution - appellant should transfer 15% of the total Grants/subsidies/consumer contribution received during the year as against 10% offered by the appellant - Capital grant being @ 15% of total grant - HELD THAT - We have gone through the material on record pertaining to the submission of the assessee stating that the assessee has not received any grant during the year and the grants received originally from the Govt. of Gujarat were apportioned against the subsidiary companies appropriate basis. In F.Y.2007-08, the State Government vide various GRS decided to convert the grant given during the F.Y. 2005-06 to 2007-08 2019 (9) TMI 376 - ITAT AHMEDABAD for implementation of Jyoti Gram Yojna (JGY) into equity share capital. Total grants received during the aforesaid financial years were allocated among the four distribution companies for implementation of the aforesaid scheme of the State Government. We do not find any infirmity with the decision of the Ld. Therefore, the aforesaid grants received cannot be treated as income of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal is dismissed

Issues:
1. Interpretation of tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital grant.
3. Analysis of various grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue.
4. Examination of the Tribunal's decision against the Revenue in a similar case.
5. Assessment of the Tribunal's decision in the present case.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal questioned the Tribunal's decision in upholding the order of the CIT (A) regarding the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer concerning a capital grant.

Issue 2:
The primary question raised was whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of a capital grant being 15% of the total grant of ?25,000 Lacs. The CIT (A) had confirmed the addition, citing a previous decision by a predecessor in a similar case.

Issue 3:
The Revenue raised multiple grounds of appeal, challenging various aspects of the CIT (A)'s decision. These included the treatment of capital grants and subsidies, interest income, set off of unabsorbed depreciation, and other related matters. The Tribunal addressed each ground of appeal and provided detailed reasoning for its decision on each issue.

Issue 4:
In a related case involving the same assessee, the Tribunal had ruled against the Revenue on a similar question regarding the treatment of grants and subsidies. The Tribunal's decision in that case was cited as a precedent in the present appeal, where the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 5:
After considering the arguments and precedents, the Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Court agreed with the concurrent findings of fact by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal that the assessee did not acquire any fixed assets on which depreciation had been claimed, thus grants could not be reduced from the cost of fixed assets. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the capital grant.

← Previous Next →