9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of industrialization in the state of West Bengal. In the respondent assessee s own case for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the controversy as to whether the subsidy received is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt; came for consideration in the case of Budge Budge Refineries Limited [ 2022 (2) TMI 533 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and the Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue and held that the amount received is capital subsidy and Section 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be invoked. Appellant has completely failed to distinguish the aforesaid judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the respondent assessee s own case relating to the same Scheme with respect to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Thus issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Promotion Assistance, State Capital Investment Subsidy, Waiver of Electricity Duty, Employment of General Subsidy, Remission of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges. In the present set of facts, we are concerned only with the Industrial Promotion Assistance (for short 'IPA') which was sanctioned to the respondent being 75% of the Sales Tax paid in the year previous to the year during which IPA would be released subject to maximum of 100% of the fixed capital investment. Thus, the subsidy granted under IPA to the respondent was related to fixed capital investment i.e. maximum 100% of the fixed capital investment. The IPA was available for a period of 15 years or till the financial cap, i.e. 100% of the fixed capital investment, is reached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer in the income of the assessee treating it as revenue receipt, whereas the assessee claimed the aforesaid amount to be capital receipt. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed ITA Nos. 388, 389 and 390/Kol/2014 (assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.01.2017. Submissions 6. Learned senior standing counsel for the appellant submits that the subsidy received by the respondent assessee was a revenue receipt and therefore, the Assessing Officer has law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Budge Budge Refineries Limited (supra) and the Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue and held that the amount received is capital subsidy and Section 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be invoked. Learned counsel for the appellant has completely failed to distinguish the aforesaid judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the respondent assessee's own case relating to the same Scheme with respect to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. We have also perused the aforesaid judgment of the coordinate Bench and we find that the controversy involved is squarely covered by the said judgment. We also find ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid judgment in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
