CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

383 ITR 217Supreme Court of India2016#450 most cited

What is CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. authority for?

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. · Section 80IB · Section 80IC · subsidy · excise duty refund · revenue receipt · business income · depreciation · P&L account

Also reported as

67 Taxmann.com 158

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 80IBSection 2(24)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 1961Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 115jasection 80hhsection 80hsection 80hhcsection 28(iv)section 80ibsection 115jb(2)section 80icsection 80iasection 80ideduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata vs. M/S. Lovelock & Lewes, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 1021/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos. 1020 & 1021/KOL/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-2008 & 2010-2011 M/s. Lovelock & Lewes IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1020 & 1021/KOL/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-2008 & 2010-2011 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,......................................Appellant Circle-22, Kolkata, 54, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700 016 -Vs.- M/s. Lovelock & Lewes,...........................................................Respondent Plot NY 14, Block-EP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Ko…

DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata vs. M/S. Lovelock & Lewes, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 1020/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos. 1020 & 1021/KOL/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-2008 & 2010-2011 M/s. Lovelock & Lewes IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1020 & 1021/KOL/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-2008 & 2010-2011 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,......................................Appellant Circle-22, Kolkata, 54, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700 016 -Vs.- M/s. Lovelock & Lewes,...........................................................Respondent Plot NY 14, Block-EP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Ko…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 931/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…ith the business activities of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the excise duty refund is eligible u/s. 80IB(4) of the Act. In this regard, we support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steel Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217, wherein it was held as under: “Section 28(iii)(b)* specifically states that income from cash assistance, by whatever name called, received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India, will be income chargeable to income tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". If cash assistanc…

Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 860/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…ith the business activities of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the excise duty refund is eligible u/s. 80IB(4) of the Act. In this regard, we support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steel Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217, wherein it was held as under: “Section 28(iii)(b)* specifically states that income from cash assistance, by whatever name called, received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India, will be income chargeable to income tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". If cash assistanc…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2286/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…ith the business activities of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the excise duty refund is eligible u/s. 80IB(4) of the Act. In this regard, we support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steel Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217, wherein it was held as under: “Section 28(iii)(b)* specifically states that income from cash assistance, by whatever name called, received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India, will be income chargeable to income tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". If cash assistanc…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solution(India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2399/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…ith the business activities of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the excise duty refund is eligible u/s. 80IB(4) of the Act. In this regard, we support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steel Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217, wherein it was held as under: “Section 28(iii)(b)* specifically states that income from cash assistance, by whatever name called, received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India, will be income chargeable to income tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". If cash assistanc…

Sri.Navas M.Meeran, Adimaly vs. The DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 326/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69Section 801BSection 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.325 & 326/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Navas M. Meeran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Adimaly Agro Food Industries, Income-tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi. Adimaly. [PAN:AEIPM: 2852E] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Sjhri R. Krishnan, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 01/03/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate ord…

Sri.Nava M.Meeran, Adimaly vs. The ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 325/COCH/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69Section 801BSection 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.325 & 326/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Navas M. Meeran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Adimaly Agro Food Industries, Income-tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi. Adimaly. [PAN:AEIPM: 2852E] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Sjhri R. Krishnan, CA Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 01/03/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate ord…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jindal Worldwide Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1843/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1843/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 145/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1843/Ahd/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No. 145/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ M/s. Jindal Worldwide Income Tax Limited Vs. 1st Floor, Suryrath, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad 1st Floor, Navjivan Trust Panchvati First Lane, Building, Ahmedabad – Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380014 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACJ3816G (Appellant / Respondent)…

M/S. Avichal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 824/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Sainishri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Saini

Section 43(1)Section 80Section 80I

…le High Court. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the depreciation in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. also which was directed to be allowed by the ITAT following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. – [2016] 383 ITR 217 (SC). He, therefore, stated that the claim of depreciation may be allowed. 5. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. She further stated that the demerger took place in the year 2006-07 while the year under consideration is 2011-12. How the depreciation can be claimed and allowed on actual cost of demerged…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Avichal Buildcon (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4876/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Sainishri Bhavnesh Saini Shri Bhavnesh Saini

Section 43(1)Section 80Section 80I

…le High Court. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the depreciation in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. also which was directed to be allowed by the ITAT following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. – [2016] 383 ITR 217 (SC). He, therefore, stated that the claim of depreciation may be allowed. 5. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. She further stated that the demerger took place in the year 2006-07 while the year under consideration is 2011-12. How the depreciation can be claimed and allowed on actual cost of demerged…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1831/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…d. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 1 raised by the revenue.” Respectfully following the same the ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed.” We further find that hon'ble apex court’s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC) has settled the law about the similar kind of interest subsidy reducing revenue expenditure as eligible for sec. 80I deduction. Be that as it may, learned co-ordinate bench has declined Revenue’s similar arguments in preceding paragraph. We therefore adopt the said reasoning mutatis mutandis affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. The…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1830/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…d. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 1 raised by the revenue.” Respectfully following the same the ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed.” We further find that hon'ble apex court’s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC) has settled the law about the similar kind of interest subsidy reducing revenue expenditure as eligible for sec. 80I deduction. Be that as it may, learned co-ordinate bench has declined Revenue’s similar arguments in preceding paragraph. We therefore adopt the said reasoning mutatis mutandis affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. The…

DCIT, Cir-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 61/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…d. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 1 raised by the revenue.” Respectfully following the same the ground nos. 1 and 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed.” We further find that hon'ble apex court’s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC) has settled the law about the similar kind of interest subsidy reducing revenue expenditure as eligible for sec. 80I deduction. Be that as it may, learned co-ordinate bench has declined Revenue’s similar arguments in preceding paragraph. We therefore adopt the said reasoning mutatis mutandis affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. The…

M/S. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4990/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 4990/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O Rra Tax India, D-28, South Tax, Central Circle-04, Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafca6845D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Vide: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT DR
Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

…fund has not been treated in the form of capital subsidy or grant which can be reduced from the cost of assets. 14. Since findings returned by the ld. CIT (A) are based upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. – (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC), we are of the considered view that the excise refund is in the nature of revenue receipt forming part of profits and gains 7 Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. arising from the business and as such cannot be reduced from the cost of plant & machinery. So, the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) on this issue are confirmed. 14. In view of what has b…

M/S. K Kalpana Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…in the plastic sector and compared it with transport subsidy, interest subsidy and power subsidy received from the Government by another company, M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. in the case of which, Hon'ble Supreme Court income CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC) has held that any assistance/incentive received by an assessee as reimbursement towards cost of manufacturing falls under the head “profits & Gains of Business or Profession” and qualify for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Income Tax Act, AR in this respect. As far as export incentive is concerned, it has not been found to be similar to the subsi…

M/S Brooks Laboratories Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 877/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…for assessee contended that the issue now stood settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT,Jammu & Anr vs M/s Shree Balaji Alloys in Civil Appeal No.10061 of 2001 dt.19-04-2016 ,CIT vs M/s Meghalya Steels 383 ITR 217 (SC) & the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dharampal Premchand 317 ITR 353(Del) ,SLP against which filed by the department was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was pointed out that it is now settled ,by virtue of the aforesaid decisions, that the excise duty refund was a capital receipt not exigible to tax and…

M/S. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 823/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anchal Khandelwal, Senior DR
Section 153ASection 32Section 43Section 44ASection 801CSection 80ISection 8I

…und has not been treated in the form of capital subsidy or grant which can be reduced from the cost of assets. 14. Since findings returned by the ld. CIT (A) are based upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. – (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC), we are of the considered view that the excise refund is in the nature of revenue receipt forming part of profits and gains arising from the business and as such cannot be reduced from the cost of plant & machinery. So, the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) on this issue are confirmed. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of t…

Padmavati Wind Energy Pvt.Ltd, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 899/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 897 To 899/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 80I

…ongly claimed benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) on ‘Sales Tax Benefit’ and M/s. Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. (supra.). The Tribunal after considering various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., reported as 383 ITR 217 held as under: “10. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) had occasion to consider the nature of subsidy received in the form of sales tax incentive for generation of power in the State of Maharashtra. The Tribunal after analyzing the scheme of subsidy threadbar…

Padmavati Wind Energy Pvt.Ltd, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 898/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 897 To 899/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 80I

…ongly claimed benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) on ‘Sales Tax Benefit’ and M/s. Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. (supra.). The Tribunal after considering various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., reported as 383 ITR 217 held as under: “10. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) had occasion to consider the nature of subsidy received in the form of sales tax incentive for generation of power in the State of Maharashtra. The Tribunal after analyzing the scheme of subsidy threadbar…