9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Revenue has upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that the entertainment tax subsidy received by the assessee is in the nature of capital receipts. Further, in case of CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd. [ 2015 (2) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has expressed identical view. Undisputedly, Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue has followed the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra. That being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the order is upheld and grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. Entertainment tax subsidy is held to be capital in nature, whether, it will go to reduce the cost of acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity engaged in the business of operation and management of multiplexes. In the relevant financial years, corresponding to the respective assessment years, assessee had received entertainment tax subsidy under a scheme formulated by the Government of Maharashtra. The object behind formulating such scheme is to encourage capital investment in multiplex/theater complex. As per the scheme, exemption from entertainment tax is allowed to the multiplexes for certain initial years of operation considering the fact that multiplexes are capital intensive and their gestation period is long in longer. 5. In course of assessment proceedings when the assessing officer called up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own case in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009- 10, Hon ble Bombay High Court while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue has upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that the entertainment tax subsidy received by the assessee is in the nature of capital receipts. Further, in case of CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd. (55 taxmann.com 26), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has expressed identical view. 10. Undisputedly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue has followed the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra. That being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the order is upheld and grounds raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and examined the facts on record in the light of decisions cited before us, we are of the view that entertainment tax subsidy granted by the State Government is not for the purpose of utilizing on any particular or specified assets. That being the factual position emerging on record, the reasoning of the assessing officer that such subsidy would go to reduce the cost of assets is unacceptable. More so, when the revenue has failed to bring any material on record to demonstrate that the subsidy has actually gone to reduce the cost of any specified assets on which the assessee claimed depreciation. That being the factual position, no part of the subsidy can be reduced from the written down value to compute depreciation. 14. Accordingly, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
