Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai(JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(AM)
the years, both the appeals are clubbed and heard and common order is passed. The appellant’s main argument is that the amendment to the section vide Finance Act 2015 does not in any way effect the non-taxability of the same on extinguishment of sales tax liability on prepayment at NPV and hence the action of Ld. AO treating the same as “income” and as confirmed
2 Oricon Enterprises Limited by Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law i.e., the amount credited in its profit and loss account is non-taxable.
Ground No. 2&3 relate to interest income unreconciled with 26AS statement and initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act are not pressed by Ld. AR of the appellant company during the hearing before the ITAT and hence not adjudicated. The same was mentioned in their written submissions filed before the ITAT.
Coming back to the core issue of taxability of amount credited to profit and loss account, which was claimed exempt, the Ld. AR of the appellant’s main arguments are summarised as follows :-
3.1 The Ld. AO invoked section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and held that the differential value between the amount of sales tax retained by appellant company and the amount paid to State Government in this year as “income” of this year because of amended provisions. It was argued by Ld. AR of the appellant that the same is wrong because the appellant company has repaid the Net Present Value of liability/amount payable to the State Government as determined by them and hence there is no “benefit” or “assistance” to them to come within the purview of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act.
Ld. AO at paragraph 7.4 also held that the plain reading of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act is very broad it is to bring to tax any assistance in the form of a subsidy/grant/cash assistance .......concession/reimbursement (by
3 Oricon Enterprises Limited whatever name it is called) is deemed as income. The Ld. AO also held that there is a gain on extinguishment of deferred sales tax liability which is arising out of Package Scheme of Incentive 1958 and Bombay Sales Tax 1959. Thus, it was held by Ld. AO that the contention of appellant is not acceptable, in his assessment order. The Ld. AO has used the word “extinguished the liability”.
4.1 The Ld. AR of the appellant has argued and also filed written submission. It was argued that in the impugned years, no benefit accrued to the appellant company. The benefit accrued to them at the first stage, i.e., at the time of receipt of eligibility certificates and not in this impugned year. It was submitted that no benefit was accrued to the appellant at the time of prepayment of deferred sales tax liability at its NPV, because the NPV does not result into any advantage. There is no economic benefit to the appellant by opting for prepayment, as the appellant is paying exactly the same amount which is having the value of amount payable in future. The Ld. AR has relied on the Special Bench decision of Sulzer India in this regard. The Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that this Special Bench of Sulzer India Ltd. was later upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court and this concept was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (320 CTR 209). Then, the Ld. AR of the appellant referred certain ICDS guidelines for computation of income, dictionary meaning of “assistance” etc. and concluded that the appellant neither got any benefit nor any advantage nor any help and hence section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act
4 Oricon Enterprises Limited cannot be invoked in these two years and requested the Bench to delete the addition made by the Ld. AO which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.
CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Serum Institute of India (P) Ltd. (2023)
157 Taxman.com 107(Bom) while confirming the decision of the Ld. AO.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A).
Rival submissions are heard and the Bench is unable to agree with the submissions of Ld. AR of the appellant for the following reasons :-
“For the sake of clarity section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act after amendment inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.4.2016 is reproduced as follows :- 2(24)(xviii) : “assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement (by whatever name called) by the Central Government or a State Government or any authority or body or agency in cash or kind to the assessee other than,— (a)the subsidy or grant or reimbursement which is taken into account for determination of the actual cost of the asset in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43; or (b)the subsidy or grant by the Central Government for the purpose of the corpus of a trust or institution established by the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be”.
6.1 On perusal of the above sub-section, it can be seen that the Government intends to tax all types of subsidies, grants, cash incentives, duty drawback, waivers, concessions or reimbursement by whatever name called by the Central or State Government (emphasis supplied). Prior to the amendment, there was lot of litigation which went up to Supreme Court, on the issue whether the grants etc. are in revenue/capital field or taxable/non- taxable etc. In order to put a full-stop to this litigation, the Central Government has brought an amendment as above, to tax all the benefits/assistance/grant etc. which can be inferred from the wording used
5 Oricon Enterprises Limited “by whatever name called”. So, it encompasses all benefits accrued to appellant will come under the tax net, after the amendment and that is the intent of legislature. From this perspective, let us see the impugned case.
The appellant company is supposed to repay Rs. 1,83,60,000/- which was kept by them for a period of ten years as sales tax collected from customers.
The appellant company was given a benefit or incentive by State Government to keep this money with them for setting up an industry in a backward area.
Otherwise, the appellant company had to pay entire sales tax collected from customers, to the Government immediately as per the due dates mentioned under Maharashtra Sales Tax Act. Over a period of 10 years, the appellant company has collected and kept with it an amount of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- and this amount had to be repaid in subsequent 5 equal installments. The Maharashtra State Government has come out with a “Scheme of Incentive” as per which they scientifically calculated the Net Present Value of sales tax collected. In simple words, if the appellant company prepays i.e., before five years, they would be paying lesser amount. The relevant section 94 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 is reproduced below :-
Deemed payment:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, rules or notifications, but subject to such conditions as the Commissioner may, by general or special order in the Official Gazette, specify, where a dealer to whom incentive by way of deferment of 1[sales tax or purchase tax liability] under any of the Package Schemes of Incentives designed by the State Government, have been granted by virtue of the Eligibility Certificate, and where a loan liability equal to the amount of any such tax payable by such dealer has been raised by 2[the SICOM or the Directorate of Industries] or the relevant Regional Development Corporation or the District Industries Centre concerned or the 3[***], then such tax shall be deemed, in the public interest, to have been paid.
6 Oricon Enterprises Limited (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act or in the rules or in any part of the Package Scheme of Incentives the Eligible Unit to whom an Entitlement Certificate has been granted for availing of the incentives by way of deferment of sale tax or purchase tax, as case may be, may, in respect of any of the periods during which the said certificate is valid, at its option, prematurely pay in place of the amount of tax deferred by it, an amount equal to the net present value of the deferred tax, as may be prescribed, and on making such payment, the deferred tax shall be deemed in the public interest to have been paid.
As this is an incentive, the same is covered by the amendment and hence treated as “income”.
6.2 The appellant opted to repay its sales tax liability of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- during the year under consideration at its NPV of Rs. 93,57,509/- and this NPV was arrived at scientifically by State Government. Thus, the appellant has collected and kept sales tax of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- for 10 years and repaid (prepaid) only Rs. 93,37,509/- as final payment in this year i.e., no further payment is to be done by appellant. Thus, the appellant has got benefit of Rs. 90,22,491/- and hence Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A) considered it as “income” in this year invoking section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. In fact, there is a benefit to the appellant even if the company repays the total amount of sales tax collected which was kept with them for ten years without paying any “interest”. And what is to be noted here is that, if the appellant prepays before five years, he gets further benefit of reduction of the amount collected and kept with them. As mentioned above, the amount of benefit/ assistance/cash incentive of Rs. 90,22,491/- is quantified will come within the ambit of ‘cash incentive’/concession/by whatever name called by Central Government/State Government.
6.3 The next argument of appellant is that they got benefit at the first stage i.e., when they were allowed to keep the sales tax collected for ten years and no benefit was accrued at second stage i.e., during the impugned years, because the amounts kept earlier one only repaid now and hence the 7 Oricon Enterprises Limited differential amount cannot be treated as “income” under the amended provisions. This argument is also incorrect because the appellant is paying reduced amounts which tantamount to benefit/concession only in these two years and hence obviously benefit accrued to them in these two years and the Department is correct in treating them to tax in these relevant years. In other words, the appellant company had the incentive/benefit of keeping the sales tax collected from customers for a period of ten years in the first stage.
Now, during the impugned years, the appellant got further benefit/concession of paying lesser amount to the Government than the amount collected by the appellant.
6.4 The appellant’s argument is that there is no benefit to it as they paid NPV is not correct. The appellant company itself quantified the income as profit and credited this amount in its audited profit and loss account filed alongwith Return of Income. If it is not profit, the appellant company would not have credited in its profit and loss account instance.
6.5 The appellant has argued before the Ld. CIT(A) that ICDS-7 as notified under section 145(2) excludes “assistance” whose value cannot be ascertained. He also submitted that even if the ‘grant’ is valuable one, it cannot be translated into precise numbers, it is difficult to ascertain to come under the word ‘assistance’. Precisely, this argument goes against the appellant in this present case because the NPV was quantified i.e., if appellant prepays in a particular year, the appellant company had pay a certain reduced value, it is arithmetically computed by Government and accordingly eligibility certificates showing reduced value were issued by State
8 Oricon Enterprises Limited Government. This differential amount of Rs. 90,22,491/- i.e. the reduced amount paid by appellant was correctly treated by Revenue as ‘income’ as
per ICDS-7.
6.6 From the order of Ld. CIT(A), paragraph 8.5, it could be seen that this first appellate authority has placed reliance on the decision of Serum Institute of India (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, where Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court examined the scope of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act post- amendment. The relevant paragraph 8.5 of Ld. CIT(A) order is reproduced for clarity :- “8.5 The Finance Act, 2015, significantly altered the landscape by introducing sub-clause (xviii) to section 2(24). The amendment defined any assistance in the form of subsidy, grant, cash incentive, duty drawback, waiver, concession, or reimbursement provided by the Central or State Government as income, hence taxable, unless used to determine the actual cost of an asset. This amendment sought to end disputes by making all subsidies taxable unless they fell under an exclusion category. Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in Serum Institute of India (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2023] 157 taxmann.com 107 (Bombay) held that imposition of tax on subsidies, incentive and concession under amended provision of section 2(24)(xviii) does not constitute 'taking away1 of a benefit but rather represents a recalibration of fiscal advantages in line with broader economic and policy considerations. According to Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, amendment to section 2(24) by insertion of sub- clause (xviii) by Finance Act, 2015 is a perfect example of a legislative endeavour to align definition of 'income' with evolving economic landscapes and thus section 2(24)(xviii) does not suffer from vice of discrimination. While examining an upholding the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has made the following observations:
"36. We are unable to find or even assume that what the legislature has done for inserting the impugned sub-clause is irrational. There is no room for any doubt. There is nothing to even question the constitutionality and in our view petitioner has not been able to demonstrate a clear transgression of constitutional principles. The nature of economic regulation is complex. The fiscal laws are instrumental in the financial governance of the state and are outcome of detailed economic planning and consideration.
Undoubtedly, the power to tax exists and the extent of burden is a matter for the discretion for the law makers. It is not the function of the court to consider the propriety or justness of the tax or enter upon the reality of legislative policy. If the evident intent and general operations of the tax
9 Oricon Enterprises Limited legislation is to adjust the burden with a fair reasonable degree of equality, the constitutional requirement is satisfied.
The policy of tax in its effectuation, might, of course, bring in some hardship in some individual cases. That is, inevitable. Every cause, it is said, has its martyrs. Mere excessiveness of a tax or even the circumstances that its imposition might tend towards the diminution of the earnings or profits of petitioner, per se and cannot constitute violation of constitutional rights. If in the process a few individuals suffer severe hardship that cannot be helped, for individual interests must yield to the largea interests of the community or the country as indeed every noble cause claims its martyr. ................ ................ ............... 41. Matters of economic policy should be best left to the wisdom of the legislature. In the context of a changed economic scenario the expertise of the people dealing with the subject should not be lightly interfered with. While dealing with economic legislation, this court would interfere only in those few cases where the view reflected in the legislation is not possible to be taken at all. The case of petitioner certainly does not fall within this exception. We also do not find that by inserting the impugned sub clause there is any perversity or gross disparity resulting in clear or hostile discrimination.
As noted earlier it is trite that the legislature is the best forum to weigh different problems in the fiscal domain and form policies to address the same including to create a new liability, exempt an existing liability, create a deduction or subject an existing deduction to new regulatory measures. In the very nature of taxing statutes, legislature holds the power to frame laws to plug in specific leakages. The mere fact that the institution of tax by virtue of the impugned sub clause falls more heavily on petitioner cannot result in its invalidity.
In the light of the above, in our view, the amendment to Section 2(24) by the insertion of sub-cause (xviii) of the Finance Act, 2015, is a perfect example of a legislative endeavour to align the definition of "income" with the evolving economic landscapes and judicial precedent of it being an inclusive and elastic term. The submissions of petitioner though appear to be of fiscal concern were, in our view, more an argument of diminished profits and a narrow interpretation of income which the Apex Court has time and again expanded. The submissions of petitioner fall short of appreciating the overarching legislative intent to foster a comprehensive and equitable taxation regime. The amendment to Section 2(24) by insertion of the impugned sub-clause that includes various subsidies and concessions only indicates the well established jurisprudential path ensuring that the income tax laws remain attuned to the economic realities and continue to serve as a vital cog in the nation's fiscal machinery. As submitted by ASG, it is the duty of the legislature to ensure that taxation policy reflects a balance between incentivizing economic activity and ensuring the equitable distribution of fiscal resources.
10 Oricon Enterprises Limited 44. In our view, there is no merit in the petition. Petition dismissed.”
6.7 The amount of Rs. 90,22,491/- (waived amount) is ‘income’, even before this amendment, because this subsidy/assistance falls in Revenue field. It is an undisputed fact that in the present case, the incentive in the form of reduced NPV given to appellant is to run its business set up in backward area in a more profitable way and not to acquire any asset. Hence, the same is not a capital receipt and to be treated as revenue receipt only. Hon’ble Supreme Court decision of Ld. CIT(A) Vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392)(SC) held that the character of receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined concerning the purpose for which the subsidy is granted. In other words, one has to apply the purpose test. In other words, one has to apply the purpose test. The point of time the subsidy is paid is not relevant. If the object of the subsidy is to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably, then the receipt is on the revenue account. In the present facts, it is an undisputed fact that in the present case, the incentive in the form of reduced NPV given to appellant is to run its business set up in backward area in a more profitable way and not to acquire any asset. Hence, the same is not a capital receipt and to be treated as revenue receipt only.
6.8 The word “income” under section 2(24) of the Act is defined as an ‘inclusive’ way and not ‘exhaustive’ which means, unless the receipt is excluded or classified as ‘exempt’, the same has to be treated as ‘income’ only and liable to tax. Such view has been expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, such as :- a) “Income” is a word of wide import – the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dooars Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 1962 SCR(3) 157, has held that the word “income” is of the widest amplitude and it must be given its natural and grammatical meaning – The definition of the term “income” starts with the word “includes” and list is inclusive and not exhaustive.
11 Oricon Enterprises Limited b) The Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karthikeyan 201 ITR 866 (SC) has held that the purpose of the inclusive definition is not to limit the meaning, but to widen its net and the several clauses therein are not exhaustive of the meaning of “income”; even if a receipt did not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses, it might still be income if it partakes of the nature of income. c) The Legislature has widened the net of “income” by including “cash assistance” with retrospective amendment w.e.f. 1.4.1967 under section 2(24)(vb) of the I.T. Act w.r.t. exports and the same was held to be constitutionally valid by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arco Leather (P) Ltd. 194 ITR 7 (Del). Now, Legislature, further widened the net of “income” by amending section 2(24)(xviii) of the I.T. Act to include all benefits, by whatever name it is called. d) The definition of “income” under section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. It adds several artificial categories to the concept of “income” but on that account, the expression “income” does not lose its natural connotation. Anything which can be properly described as “income” is taxable under the Act unless of course, it is exempted under one or the other provisions of the Act – Emil Webber 200 ITR 486 (SC).
6.9 The dictionary meaning of ‘assistance’ was argued by the appellant during the hearing proceedings. The same is reproduced below :- “24. The reference can also be made to dictionary meaning of 'Assistance' and 'Government assistance' in Advanced Law Lexicon which reads as under :- "Assistance. The act of assisting; help; aid; succor; support. Government assistance. Action by government designed to provide an economic benefit specific to an enterprise or range of enterprises qualifying under certain criteria".
Further, dictionary meaning of 'Assist' as per judicial Dictionary is as under :-
12 Oricon Enterprises Limited
"Assist. To help; aid; succor; lend countenance or encouragement to; participate in as an auxiliary. To contribute effect in the complete accomplishment of an ultimate purpose intended to be effected by those engaged". 26. Dictionary meaning of 'Assistance' as per Concise Oxford English Dictionary is as under :- "assistance, the provision of money, resources, or information to help someone, the action of helping".”
All these meanings show that appellant got ‘assistance’ of Government and ‘concession’ by way of reduced payment, to come within the ambit of section 2(24)(xviii) of amended Act.
6.10. In the present case, there is a ‘benefit’ because the appellant company is paying the reduced amount to the Government as compared to the actual sales tax collected from its customers over a period of 10 years. Thus the waiver amount of Rs. 90,22,491/- comes within the ambit of section 28(iv) of the Act, to be brought under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ which says that the value of benefit/perquisite/whether convertible into money or not, arising from business.
6.11 The Ld. AR of appellant argued the case on the basis of Income computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) and submitted that the amount retained by them does not come within the ambit of “income”. It is noted that, even by those accounting standards, the objective of Indian Accounting Standard-20, Government assistance is an action by Government designed to provide an economic benefit. In this impugned case, the appellant got benefit of more than Rs. 90 lakhs as mentioned above. In order to align the provisions of ICDS, with taxation of grants of Government, this amendment was brought in and it is pertinent to go through the explanatory notes to the Finance Act 2015, wherein the purpose of introduction of this sub-clause is explained as under :-
13 Oricon Enterprises Limited “5. Alignment of provisions relating to taxation of Government Grants with the provisions of Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS).
5.1 Sub-section (2) of section 145 of the Income-tax Act provides that the Central Government may notify Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for any class of assessees or for any class of income. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notified ICDS-I to ICDS-X vide Notification No. S.O.892(E) dated 31 March, 2015 after wide public consultations. The ICDS-VII relating to Government grants provides that all Government grants except relating to depreciable asset shall be recognised as income in accordance with the provisions of the said ICDS. The existing provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (i) of section 43 of the Income-tax Act already contained the guidance for treatment of Government grants relating to acquisition of an asset. However, there was no specific guidance available under the provisions of the Income-tax Act for treatment of other Government grants. During the public consultations for ICDS, the stakeholders suggested that in order to avoid any future controversy in this matter, there should be specific provision in the Income-tax Act for treating these Government grants as income. The Accounting Standard Committee, which drafted the ICDS, has also examined the suggestions/comments received during public consultations and suggested that the issue of legislative amendment for bringing certainty in this matter may be examined. In order to avoid any future litigation and controversy in this matter, the definition of income under clause (24) of section 2 of the Income- tax Act has been amended so as to provide that the income shall include assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement (by whatever name called) by the Central Government or a State Government or any authority or body or agency in cash or kind to the assessee other than the subsidy or grant or reimbursement which is taken into account for determination of the actual cost of the asset in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (i) of section 43 of the Income-tax Act.
5.2 As mentioned in Press Release dated 5th May, 2015, the amended definition of income shall not apply to the LPG subsidy or any other welfare subsidy received by an individual in his personal capacity and not in connection with the business or profession carried on by him.".
5.3 Applicability:- This amendment takes effect from 1 April, 2016 and would accordingly apply to assessment year 2016-17 and subsequent assessment years."
From the above, it is quite clear that all government grants in the nature of subsidy, cash, assistance etc. by whatever name called are intended to be recognised as income. The purpose of this amendment is to align provisions relating to taxation of Government grants with the Income Computation and Discloser Standards (ICDS) provisions and to avoid any further controversy and litigation in the matter.”
14 Oricon Enterprises Limited Hence, the argument of Ld. AR relating to following ICDS standards will not hold water.
6.12 The appellant’s argument is that they are not getting any benefit by prepaying the amount is incorrect. From the profit and loss account of this year, it is observed that the appellant company has taken huge loans and paid term loan interest of Rs. 1,84,83,089/- and interest to others to the extent of Rs. 14,45,891/- on the loans taken. If only the appellant does not prepay this amount to State Government, and this amount is utilised to repay bank loan, the appellant company would have to pay lesser interest to bank and seen from that angle also, appellant got benefit and hence comes under section 2(24) of the Act.
6.13 The amended section 2(24)(viii) used the words “concession” and “any name called” to come under this section. The appellant got a “concession” by State Government to the extent of Rs. 90.22 lakhs by prepaying the sales tax kept with it, and hence this section is correctly invoked by Ld. AO.
6.14 The Ld. AR of the appellant has filed a copy of Government of Maharashtra Industries Energy, and Labour Department Resolution No. IDL- 1088/6603/Ind-8 during the hearing before the ITAT and the same is perused. On the top of it, it is mentioned as “Dispersal of Industries – Package of “Scheme of Incentives”, which means the reduced amount paid by appellant is nothing but an “incentive” to come within the ambit of section 2(24)(viii). At page 12, this package scheme, Explanation (i) says, “where an ‘Eligible Certificate’ is issued in favour of a SSI Unit by Regional Department Corporation concerned, the eligible unit will continue to remain, for the purpose of ‘incentive’ (emphasis supplied) and the other connected matters, with the RDC even though after grant of eligibility certificate the eligible unit ceases to be as SSI Unit. Thus, the scheme which is applicable to appellant company also used word ‘incentive’ relating to the ‘eligibility
15 Oricon Enterprises Limited certificate’ based on which appellant company paid reduced amount. Hence, invoking provisions of section 2(24)(xiii) is correct.
6.15 The reliance placed by the Ld. AR of the appellant on the Special Bench decision of Sulzer (India) Ltd., which was later upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court and reliance placed on the decision of Balakrishna Industries of Hon'ble Supreme Court, are all prior to the amendment of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act introduced by the Finance Act 2015, and hence not applicable to the facts of this case. After the amendment with Finance Act 2015, all the “benefits” by whatever name they are called, will come within the ambit of “income” and hence rightly taxed by the Ld. AO. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A).
6.16 It is noted that the appellant company’s audited accounts treats it as part of “Miscellaneous Income” under the head “other income” schedule-19 of profit and loss account with a narration of “during the year ended March 31, 2017, the company had paid an amount equal to the present value amounting to Rs. 93,37,509/- in lieu of the deferred sales tax liability amounting to Rs. 1,83,60,000/-. The resulting gain of Rs. 90,22,491/- on waiver of Deferred Sales Tax liability has been included under the head “miscellaneous income” and in the petrochemical segment.
6.17. In the present facts, it is noted that the waiver of differed sales tax liability is a benefit accrued to the assessee arising out of its business. Furthermore, such a waiver holds the character of revenue, as per the definition of income under Section 2(24)(xviii), effective from April 1st, 2015. Thus, said waiver amounts to a benefit in the hands of the assesse and the sum waived is taxable under section 28(iv) of the Act. We thus direct the Ld.AO to disallow the said waiver, under section 28(iv) of the Act.
Since the facts and circumstances are same for A.Y. 2018-19 also, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above.
16 Oricon Enterprises Limited 8. In view of the above discussion, the appellant’s appeal for both the years under consideration are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/06/2025.