2019 (3) TMI 1721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... capital receipt in the case of other assessees, it pronounced the decision in this case that it was to be treated as such. In our view, that was not the correct approach. The subsidy scheme had to be analysed threadbare. The question whether the subsidy incentive was being utilized for the purpose of meeting the interest liability of the company on loans and advances taken by it to set up its p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... D The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN For the Appellant : Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Murarka, Adv., Mr. S.D. Verma, Adv., Mr. A.P. Gomes, Adv. ORDER The Court: This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The only question which has to be answered in this appeal is whether the subsidy or ince .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the subsidy scheme has been declared by the Tribunal to be capital receipt in the case of other assessees, it pronounced the decision in this case that it was to be treated as such. In our view, that was not the correct approach. The subsidy scheme had to be analysed threadbare. The question whether the subsidy incentive was being utilized for the purpose of meeting the interest liability of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X