9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1204 - AT - Income TaxNature of receipt - subsidy received - revenue or capital receipt - Held that - As decided in assessee own case relying on decision in the case of M/s. John Deere Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2015 (3) TMI 1336 - ITAT PUNE held that the subsidy received by the assessee was capital in nature. During the year under consideration out of the balance due of ₹ 2.36 crores, the assessee has received ₹ 1.26 crores during the year under consideration and in view of the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case in hand in the earlier year the said subsidy is to be treated as capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. Though, the assessee is in the original return of income had included the same in its hand, but the same is to be excluded being not taxable. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismiss the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue. Deduction on account of belated payments of employee s contribution to PF and ESIC - Held that - As relying on M/s. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where the assessee has paid the said amount due on account of employee s contribution to PF and ESIC before due date of filing of return of income, which is mentioned in the assessment order itself, there is no merit in the grounds of raised by the Revenue in this regard. - decided against revenue
Issues:
1. Treatment of subsidy received as capital receipt 2. Disallowance of delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC Issue 1: Treatment of subsidy received as capital receipt The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-5, Pune, regarding the treatment of subsidy received as a capital receipt for the assessment year 2014-15 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the subsidy should be treated as a revenue receipt, contrary to the assessee's claim. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to treat the subsidy as a capital receipt, based on the assessee's investments and the nature of the subsidy received. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing similar judgments and the utilization of the subsidy under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2012-13, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the directions of the CIT(A) regarding the treatment of the subsidy as a capital receipt. Issue 2: Disallowance of delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC The Revenue raised grounds of appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction for belated payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) did not follow a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this regard. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which held that the amount towards employee's contribution to PF and ESIC should be allowed if paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The CIT(A) referred to this decision and concluded that since the assessee had paid the amount before the due date, the deduction should be allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court was binding and should be applied in similar cases. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the allowance of deduction for delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on both issues, ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
