9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation. Thus, respectfully following the ITAT Pune Bench in Shrinivas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. [ 2022 (4) TMI 1486 - ITAT PUNE ] the AO is directed to delete the addition of depreciation. Accordingly, Ground No.3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. Addition of Dividend - AR submitted that the assessee has already offered the said dividend for taxation, hence there is double addition - HELD THAT:- The assessee shall file the required documents before the AO and AO shall verify the facts. If the assessee has already offered the said amount in the return of income there shall not be any double addition. Accordingly, this issue is set aside to the file of the AO for factual verification. Accordingly, the ground is allowed for statistical purpose. - Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rohit Tapadiya AR. For the Revenue : Shri S P Walimbe DR. ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Punedated 25.07.2019 for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee has raised t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that on merit, the grounds of appeal are covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon ble ITAT Pune bench in the case of ITO vs Shrinivas Engineering Auto Components Pvt Ltd., in ITA No. 2992/PUN/2017 dated 27.04.2022. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of Lower Authorities. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the ld. CIT(A) in his order as well as various case laws relied by ld.AR of the Assessee. 5.1 Ground No.2 of the appellant assessee is regarding delayed payment of employees contribution towards EPF. The said issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of various Hon ble High Courts i.e. in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) the Hon ble High Court has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 5.2 The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication in all these appeals is whether the assessee having received subsidy from Government of Maharashtra under Package Scheme of Incentives of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as PSI 2007‟ for short) whether the said subsidy is capital receipt or a revenue receipt. Taking the lead case IT(SS)A No. 7/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2011012 for the narration of facts, we find that the assessee being a private limited company is engaged in manufacturing of steel at Jalna. The assessee-company had set up a mega project as defined in Government of Maharashtra‟s PSI 2007 in Jalna. Under the scheme PSI 2007 mega project the assessee has received capital incentive subsidy in different years from A.Y. 2010-11 to 2015-16 .. 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, we find that in view of the above referred judgment, the whole purpose and the grant of subsidy under PSI 2007 by Government of Maharashtra was to promote industrial growth in the less developed areas of the State and also to provide employment in the area. Once this purpose is established the subsidy has to be a capital receipt. However, the position has changed w.e.f. 01.04.2016 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 onwards with the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Supreme Court held as under :- Where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure adopted under the scheme to quantify the financial aid, is not a payment, directly or indirectly, to meet any portion of the 'actual cost. The expression 'actual cost in section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, needs to be interpreted liberally. Such a subsidy does not partake of the incidents which attract the conditions for its deductibility from 'actual cost'. The amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the 'actual cost' under section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc. 11. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Swastik Sanitary Works Ltd., 286 ITR 544 (Guj.) following the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (supra) held that the subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move and establish industries,, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
