BRIDGESTONE INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELH, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received by the assessee were capital in nature, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court judgments. The subsidies were therefore to be treated as a reduction in the cost of acquisition of assets.
What were the facts?
The assessee received subsidies from the Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh governments for industrial development. The Assessing Officer treated these subsidies as revenue receipts, leading to additions to the assessee's total income. The assessee contended that these subsidies were capital in nature.
What were the issues?
Whether subsidies received from state governments for industrial development are capital or revenue receipts, and how they should be treated for tax purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT654 citing82 ITR 363 · 1971 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.577 citing174 Taxmann 87 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd.7 citing83 Taxmann.com 204 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
This appeal is filed by assessee against the assessment order passed for assessment year 2016 – 17 under section 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) read with section 144B of the income tax act passed by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (the learned AO) on 23/4/2021 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,311,186,614 against the income returned by the assessee at ₹ 441,696,759/– as per return of income filed on 29/11/2016 as per normal computation of income wherein the only addition is on account of subsidies received from government of Maharashtra and government of Madhya Pradesh amounting to ₹ 470,341,836 and book profit under section 115JB of the act determined at ₹ 3,017,063,746 against book profit returned by the assessee at ₹
The only dispute in this appeal is addition of ₹ 332,287,820/– ( net of depreciation) in respect of subsidy received from government of Maharashtra under the packaged scheme of incentives, 2007 by treating the same as revenue receipt and further making an addition of ₹ 138,054,016/– ( net of depreciation) in respect of subsidy received from government of Madhya Pradesh under the industrial promotion policy 2004 by treating the same as revenue receipt to the normal computation of total income.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The ld. AO and Hon’ble DRP erred in making an addition of ₹ 33,22,87,820 (gross subsidy of ₹ 37,75,86,403/-, less depreciation of ₹ 4,52,98,683/-) in respect of the subsidies received from Government of Maharashtra under the Packaged Scheme of Incentives, 2007 by treating the same as revenue receipt
Prayer
The Appellant prays that the addition made by Ld.AO and Hon’ble DRP be deleted and the Ld.AO be directed to treat the amount of ₹ 33,22,87,820/- as a capital receipt and being covered by Explanation 10 to section 42(1) of the Act.
2. The Ld. AO and Hon’ble DRP erred in making an addition of ₹ 13,80,54,016/- (gross subsidy of ₹ 15,68,74,000/- less depreciation of ₹ 1,88,19,984/-) in respect of the subsidies
Prayer
The Appellant prays that the addition made by Ld. AO and Hon’ble DRP be deleted and the Ld.AO be directed to treat the amount of ₹ 13,80,54,016/- as a capital receipt and being covered by Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act.”
Brief facts show that assessee is engaged in the business of tyre and allied products manufacturing, trading in natural rubber and synthetic rubber. The assessee has taken a radial tyre manufacturing technology and use of Bridgestone brand of manufactured products in India. Assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring a total income of ₹ 441,696,759/– which has been further revised on account of signing of Advance Pricing Agreement on 26/2/2019 declaring an income of ₹ 840,844,813. This return of income was picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed on 23/4/2021.
On perusal of the audited profit and loss account of the assessee, it was observed that assessee has credited industrial promotion subsidy under package scheme of incentives 2007 of government of Maharashtra under the head 'other operating revenue' however while filing the computation of total income assessee reduced the above from total income. The claim of the assessee is that as assessee has entered into memorandum of understanding with government of Maharashtra on 26/4/2010 to setup a manufacturing unit for manufacturing of steel belted radial, inner tubes and flaps. Industrial unit of the assessee was designated as
Further assessee has also been granted industrial investment promotion assistant by government of Madhya Pradesh for the expansion of production capacity of radial tyres at its plant. The assessee has deferred benefit recognized in the statement of profit and loss account over a period of 10 years on estimated basis and for this year has recognized ₹ 156,874,000 in the profit and loss account.
The assessee has contended that the subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt and hence not taxable. The assessee relied on decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Ponny sugars and chemicals Ltd (2008) 174 taxman 87 (SC), and several other decisions of the coordinate benches. Assessee also submitted scheme of subsidy and the memorandum of understanding entered into with government of Maharashtra. Assessee referred to explanation 10 to section 43 (1) of the act in support of its arguments and submitted that assessee has already reduced the amount of subsidy from the cost of acquisition of the asset and claimed depreciation on the net cost of acquisition.
The learned assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee that subsidy received is a capital receipt and further rejected the reliance on explanation 10 to section 43 (1) of the act. The learned AO was of the view that according to the scheme assessee is entitled to electricity duty payment
The learned authorised representative submitted a paper book containing 212 pages wherein the scheme of packaged incentive scheme 2007, memorandum of understanding entered into with the government of Maharashtra dated 26 double 2010, eligibility certificate of the assessee and copy of industrial promotion policy
The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.
More judgments on Section 43(1)
- Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), KolkataITA 1604/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 1(3)(2), MumbaiITA 977/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd, MumbaiITA 830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs Grasim Industries Ltd, MumbaiITA 6530/MUM/2026[2003-04]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2003-04
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026