DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH PVT LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2050/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 February 2018AY 2010-115 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the VAT subsidy, granted in pursuance of the state's industrial promotion policy to encourage setting up industries, is a capital receipt. Therefore, it should not be added to the total income.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was filed with a significant delay, which the Tribunal condoned. The core issue was whether VAT subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a revenue or capital receipt.

What were the issues?

Whether VAT subsidy received by an assessee under an industrial promotion policy is a revenue or capital receipt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 31.01.2018Pronounced: 08.02.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, dated 28.10.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

There was a delay of 185 days in filing this appeal by the Revenue. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and the Ld. representative for the assessee. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

The only issue arises for consideration is addition of VAT subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4.

Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee received VAT subsidy of Government of Andhra Pradesh. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee received the subsidy after commencement of business operation year after year. The incentive was a supplementary trading receipt. After the receipt of subsidy, the assessee has discretion to use the same in the way in which it desires. According to the Ld. D.R., when the assessee was receiving subsidy in the course of business activity, the same has to be naturally treated as revenue receipt, therefore, it has to be added to the total income. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Limited v. CIT (1997) 94 Taxman 368, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the subsidy was not granted for production or bringing into existence any new asset. However, it was granted year after year after setting up of a new industry and commencement of production.

According to the Ld. D.R., such a subsidy has to be treated as revenue receipt. Referring to the order of this Tribunal for assessment year 2011-12 in the assessee's own case, the Ld. D.R. pointed out that the Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court and the same is pending.

5.

On the contrary, Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that as per the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy promoted by Government of Andhra Pradesh, VAT subsidy was announced for the industrialists who preferred to set up industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to the Ld. representative, the VAT subsidy was an incentive for the industrialists to set up an industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is not for running the business of the assessee. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239, the Ld. representative submitted that when the subsidy was received in pursuance of industrial policy of State Government, it has to be treated as capital receipt. The Ld. representative further submitted that a similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2011-12 in I.T.A. No. 766/Mds/2016.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the VAT subsidy was granted to the assessee in pursuance of industrial promotion policy promoted by Government of Andhra Pradesh. The very object of Industrial Investment Promotion Policy is to invite the industrialists to prefer the State of Andhra Pradesh as their destination for establishment of industry.

The Apex Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra) examined the issue and after considering its earlier judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 and CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217, found that refund of excise duty and interest subsidy received by the assessee in pursuance of industrial policy of Government of State would be capital receipt. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →