9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 399 - AT - Income TaxNature of receipt - receipt of the financial aid from the Government - capital or revenue receipt - purpose test - HELD THAT - We find the issue now stands decided in favour of the Revenue by the decision of Serum Institute of India Private Limited Pune vs. Union of India Others 2023 (12) TMI 227 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein held that if the subsidy s purpose was to help the assessee run the business more profitably or meet daily business expenses it was considered a revenue receipt (and thus taxable). Conversely if the subsidy aimed at setting up a new unit or expanding an existing unit it was deemed a capital receipt (and not taxable). The Finance Act 2015 significantly altered the landscape by introducing sub-clause (xviii) to Section 2(24) of the Act. This amendment defined any assistance in the form of subsidy grant cash incentive duty drawback waiver concession or reimbursement provided by the Central or State Government as income hence taxable unless used to determine the actual cost of an asset. This amendment sought to end disputes by making all subsidies taxable unless they fell under an exclusion category. Appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the subsidy of Rs. 2,50,00,000 received by the assessee from the government should be classified as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt for taxation purposes. The resolution of this issue involves the application of the "purpose test" to determine the nature of the subsidy. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework primarily involves Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly sub-clause (xviii), which was introduced by the Finance Act, 2015. This sub-clause defines any assistance in the form of subsidy, grant, cash incentive, duty drawback, waiver, concession, or reimbursement provided by the Central or State Government as income, hence taxable, unless used to determine the actual cost of an asset. The key precedents considered include the landmark cases of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., where the Supreme Court applied the "purpose test" to determine whether a subsidy was a capital or revenue receipt. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal applied the "purpose test" to determine the nature of the subsidy. The test focuses on the purpose for which the subsidy is given. If the subsidy is intended to assist in running the business more profitably or to meet daily business expenses, it is considered a revenue receipt and thus taxable. Conversely, if the subsidy is aimed at setting up a new unit or expanding an existing unit, it is deemed a capital receipt and not taxable. Key Evidence and Findings The Tribunal found that the subsidy was granted after the assessee had commenced its business operations. The subsidy was intended to provide integrated and complete cold chain and preservation infrastructure facilities, which would enhance the profitability of the business. The Tribunal noted that the subsidy was not given for setting up the industry or for acquiring the cost of an asset, but for running the business more profitably. Application of Law to Facts Applying the "purpose test" and considering the introduction of sub-clause (xviii) to Section 2(24) by the Finance Act, 2015, the Tribunal concluded that the subsidy in question was a revenue receipt. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsidy was granted to assist the assessee in running its business more profitably, aligning with the criteria for a revenue receipt. Treatment of Competing Arguments The assessee argued that the subsidy should be treated as a capital receipt, relying on various case laws. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases based on the specific facts and the timing of the subsidy. The Tribunal gave significant weight to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Serum Institute of India Private Limited, which reinforced the interpretation of subsidies as revenue receipts when aimed at enhancing business profitability. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the subsidy received by the assessee was a revenue receipt and therefore taxable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A), which had classified the subsidy as a capital receipt, and restored the order of the Assessing Officer, aligning with the precedent set by the Bombay High Court. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's significant holding is the application of the "purpose test" to classify the subsidy as a revenue receipt. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment to Section 2(24) by the Finance Act, 2015, was a legislative effort to align the definition of "income" with evolving economic landscapes and judicial precedent. The Tribunal quoted the Bombay High Court's observation that the amendment aimed to ensure that taxation policy reflects a balance between incentivizing economic activity and ensuring equitable distribution of fiscal resources. Core Principles Established The judgment reinforces the principle that the nature of a subsidy is determined by its purpose. Subsidies aimed at enhancing the profitability of an ongoing business are considered revenue receipts, while those intended for setting up or expanding a business are capital receipts. The introduction of sub-clause (xviii) to Section 2(24) further clarifies the taxable nature of subsidies unless they fall under specific exclusions. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal determined that the subsidy received by the assessee was a revenue receipt and taxable under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue, reversing the decision of the CIT(A) and restoring the order of the Assessing Officer.
|
