9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative has also been negated about the applicability of explanation 10 to section 43 (1) of the act by the decision of the coordinate bench in case of orbit exports [ 2020 (9) TMI 617 - ITAT MUMBAI ]. In view of this both the grounds of appeal raised by the learned assessing officer are dismissed. - ITA No. 84/Mum/2023 And ITA No.356/Mum/2023 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2023 - Shri Prashant Maharishi, AM And Shri Kuldip Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar And Ms. Ayushi Modani, ARs For the Revenue : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. The Deputy Commissioner of income tax, Central Circle 1 (4), Mumbai (the learned AO) has preferred this appeal against the appellate order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned AO to consider correct amount of subsidy under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUF subsidy) amounting to Rs. 16,01,36,572/- as against Rs. 8,34,26,992/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the learned AO to reduce TUF subsidy of Rs. 16,01,36,572/-, being a capital receipt, from Profit as shown in the statement of profit and loss, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the ground of appeal and ought to have directed the learned AO to treat the incentives under Focus Market Scheme amounting to Rs. 13,16,569/- as capital r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed of as per order dated 24 January 2014. Against this the assessee preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench on 21st/1/2014 which was disposed of on 20 December 2019. The coordinate bench restored the certain issues to the file of the learned assessing officer. Against this the learned assessing officer framed the assessment once again on 17 June 2021 under section 143 (3) read with section 254 of the act partly rejecting the claim of the assessee. The impugned appellate order challenged by the revenue is passed against that assessment order. The main issue in the assessment was whether the subsidy received by the assessee for technology upgradation fund amounting to ₹ 83,426,992/ is capital receipt not chargeable to tax or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d scheme was to actually set of and is out the interest burden of the assessee company. The assessee has reduced the interest subsidy from the interest paid on various loans and therefore the interest income and interest expenditure both were treated as revenue expenditure and therefore the interest subsidy on technology upgradation fund was treated by the assessee itself as revenue expenditure. He further referred to the purpose of the subsidy which is a reimbursement to the assessee making actual interest expenditure. He further submitted that these subsidies have not been granted specifically against purchase of any capital asset and therefore since the purpose has been to compensate the competitive disadvantage of the business concern s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to ₹ 83,426,992/ is revenue receipt. The coordinate bench as per paragraph number 12 of that decision remanded back this issue to the file of the learned assessing officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with the law. This decision was arrived at by in the earlier years also this issue was remanded back to the file of the learned assessing officer. Therefore based on this the learned AO proceeded to examine the claim of the assessee that whether the interest subsidy received under technology upgradation fund scheme is revenue receipt or capital receipt. It is also to be noted that assessee itself has reduced the above subsidy from the interest expenditure debited to the profit and loss account. Thus, assessee itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd report of Assessing Officer and examining TUF scheme in details. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that the Tribunal in assessee s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 (supra) has admitted this issue raised in additional ground of appeal and has restored to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 39. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the issue may be restored to Assessing Officer for reconsideration in line with Tribunal order in assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10. 40. Both sides heard. The assessee has received subsidy under TUF scheme. The assessee has claimed the subsidy as capital receipt, whereas, the Department treated the subsidy as Revenue in nature. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
