9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge Scheme of Incentives, 1993 was held to be capital in nature. DR has failed to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the absence of any contrary material on record, we uphold the findings of First Appellate Authority in deleting the addition in respect of subsidy received by the assessee holding it to be capital in nature. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case as emanating from records are : The assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of construction machinery and equipments. During the year relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee received subsidy to the tune of ₹ 15,73,66,000/- under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 floated by the State Government. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of subsidy as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R submitted that the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon ble High Court against the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s. John Deere Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). The ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee is in the nature of capital receipt. 5. We have heard the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a). We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported as 339 ITR 632, wherein subsidy sanctioned to the assessee under similar Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 was held to be capital in nature. The ld. DR has failed to controvert the findings of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
