2018 (6) TMI 356 - AT - Income Tax

Sales Tax (VAT) Exemption Benefit - Nature of receipt - revenue or capital - assessment as income - Held that - Assessee company has received aforesaid incentives in the nature of capital receipt from the Central and State Governments in the form of sales tax exemption under the Kutch District Economic Development Encouragement Policy, 2001 formed by the Gujarat Government and refund of Excise Duty vide notification No.39/2001- C.E dated 31/07/2001 for putting up industries in the district of Kutch which was badly devastated by a high intensity earthquake. The incentives have been granted for the rehabilitation of the said district and to generate employment there so as to bring life back to the normalcy and for attracting capital investments. The basis of computation of incentives are disbursed in the form refund a excise duty/exemption of sale tax/VAT payable by the companies setting up industries in the said district (notified area). The assessee company has set up an industrial unit in the Kutch District and has received incentive for setting up an industrial unit in Kutch District in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Government. Similar receipts in the form of incentives have been held to be in the nature of capital receipt by the Appellate Authority viz. CIT(A) and ITAT in the assessee s own case for Asst. Year 2006-07 Co-ordinate Bench has held in the matter of Genus Electrotech Ltd. 2016 (5) TMI 1136 - ITAT AHMEDABAD that subsidies do not have any income element and therefore, they should be excluded for the computation of income u/s.115JB of the Act. Sales tax incentive and excise incentive are capital receipts and hence, they are not liable for inclusion under the computation of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act - SHREE CEMENT LTD., 2011 (9) TMI 561 - ITAT JAIPUR - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the deletion of addition of Sales Tax (VAT) Exemption Benefit and Excise Duty incentive/refund treated as capital in nature.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s separate orders related to the assessment order under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The main issue was the deletion of additions made on account of Sales Tax (VAT) Exemption Benefit and Excise Duty incentive/refund, which the department argued were revenue receipts and not capital in nature. The subsidies were granted for the purpose of carrying on the business of the assessee. The department contended that the subsidies should be taxed as revenue receipts. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeals, considering the incentives as capital receipts.

The assessee, a Limited Company, derived income from various business activities, including manufacturing electrical products. The incentives received were shown as capital receipts in the profit and loss account, resulting in a lower taxable income. The AO contended that these incentives should have been offered for tax as revenue receipts. The book profit for Section 115JB was also disputed by the AO, leading to the addition of the incentive amounts.

The incentives received by the assessee were in the form of capital receipts from the Central and State Governments under specific schemes for industrial development in the Kutch District. The incentives were aimed at rehabilitation, employment generation, and attracting investments to the region. The assessee provided relevant documents supporting the receipt of these incentives for setting up industrial units in the designated area.

Previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other judgments supported the treatment of such incentives as capital receipts. The purpose test was applied to determine the nature of the subsidies, which were found to be capital in nature. The ITAT and other tribunals had consistently held that such incentives were not liable for inclusion in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

Considering the detailed reasoning and case laws presented, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the department's appeals. The tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, as the incentives were given as per government policies and were rightfully treated as capital receipts. Consequently, all three appeals filed by the department were dismissed.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the treatment of Sales Tax (VAT) Exemption Benefit and Excise Duty incentive/refund as capital receipts, in line with previous decisions and the purpose of the subsidies. The appeals by the revenue were dismissed based on the detailed analysis and legal precedents presented in the case.