Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT

228 ITR 253Supreme Court of India1997#166 most cited

What is Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

429

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT · subsidy revenue receipt · capital receipt · taxability of subsidies · Section 2(24)(xviii) · Section 37(1) · purpose of subsidy · obligation to spend · income tax treatment of subsidies

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 43(1)section 40(a)(ii)book profitsdeduction under section 80iablock of assetssection 80hhcadditional depreciationwritten down valuesection 139(5)section 80hhsection 2(24)

Judgments citing Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, CC-Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Navin Verma & Nitin Agarwal, ARs
Section 143(3)

…ected exceeding the computed amount, the assessee was liable to pay such excess sales-tax collected in this collection, we feel it expedient to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawhney Steels and Press Works Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case decided that if the moneys are given to the assesses for assisting them in carrying out their business 20 ITA No.1370-1374/Kol/2010 Paharpur Cooling towers Ltd. AYs 2001-02-2005-06 operations and the money was given only after and conditional upon commencement of the production, such subsidy must be t…

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 883/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.D.Verma, Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 139(5)

…receipt not chargeable to tax and not revenue receipt which is chargeable to tax. The Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Etc. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 105 : (2008) 13 DTR (SC) 1 : (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), held as follows: “15. After going through the two judgments, we find the ratio in Sahney Steel case (supra) and approval thereof in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra), to have been spelt out, in the following para of…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1018/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.D.Verma, Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 139(5)

…receipt not chargeable to tax and not revenue receipt which is chargeable to tax. The Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Etc. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 105 : (2008) 13 DTR (SC) 1 : (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), held as follows: “15. After going through the two judgments, we find the ratio in Sahney Steel case (supra) and approval thereof in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra), to have been spelt out, in the following para of…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…held that the subsidy has been granted for setting up/expansion of industrial unit in backward area and for running the business more efficiently and profitably. The AO also observed that in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Others-vs.- CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253, the Apex court held that if payment in the nature of subsidy from public funds are made to the assessee to assist him in carrying on his trade or business, they are trade receipt. The character of the subsidy in the hands of the recipients whether revenue or capital will have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is…

DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata vs. M/S Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 602/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCA

…made by the appellant have also been carefully examined and considered. The issue that is to be decided is whether the WBIPA receipt is a revenue or a capital receipt. The A.O placed reliance on the following case laws: Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) CIT Vs. Chindwara Fuels 245 ITR 9 (Cal) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.587 (Kol) 2006 The appellant placed reliance on the following case laws: CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (SC) ACIT Vs. Rasoi Ltd. (ITA No. 1467 to 1469 (Cal) 2001 CIT Vs. KlarSehen P. Ltd. (G.A.N. 145106 dt. 12.5.08 (Calcutta High Court) Klar…

ACIT Cir 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Narendra Vegetable Products P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4575/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Rejesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Appeal Nos.4575-4577/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit Cir 4(3) (1) Vs. M/S Narendra Vegetable R.No.649, 6Th Floor Products Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Central Building No. 3, Master Bomanji Lane, Kalbadevi Mumbai – 400 002 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn1227G अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant By : Smt Beena Santosh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Such receipt of subsidy was held on “capital account”. In this decision, the decision of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals 306 ITR 392 (SC) and the decision of 8 M/s Narendra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 4575 - 4577/Mum/2016 Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 (SC) has been discussed. It was opined that the test is that the collector of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy was granted. Likewise in the case of CIT v/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines 364 ITR 88 (Bom.) the said two decisions, namely, Sahney Steel and Press Works (supra) and…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Nikmo Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 53/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.53/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) D.C.I.T. – 9)2), M/S Nikmo Finance Pvt. बनाम/ 2 Nd Floor,Room No. 218 Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Point, M.K. Road, 349, 8 Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aabcn9974G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey
Section 143(3)

…multiplexes is highly capital intensive, with a long gestation period. 3.3.1. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied on Ponni Sugars (306 ITR 392) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had explained its previous judgment in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. C. CIT (228 ITR 253) as under:- “The importance of the Judgment of this court in Sahney Steel case lies in the fact that it has discussed and analyzed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applies in judging the character of a subsidy. That test is that the character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respe…

Manohar Processors Pvt. Ltd.(Dicitex Furnishing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT -Range 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the above two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 7120/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Manohar Processors Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. (Dicitex Home बनाम/ Mumbai Furnishings Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Shop No.2, Kakad Air Conditioner Market, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaccm7535R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hariom Tulsyan Shri Purushottam Kumar- Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 15/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(3)

…on account of interest subsidy amounting to Rs.2,84,21,657/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.2,48,57,810/- for the A.Y. 2012-13 treating the same as capital receipt by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), without countering the findings of the AO in Para 5.5 of the assessment order that assessee had received subsidy in the form of 5% reduction in the rate of interest and interest being a revenue expenditure allowable under the Act, any subsidy relating to interest is also to be treated as revenue item. 3. The nature of the business of the…

Svg Fashion Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1217/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tting up of the industry but after commencement of production for repayment of loan. In such situation, the amount should have been treated as revenue receipt as per judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The purpose of scheme under which the subsidy is given, has been discussed by the Tribunal. To sustain and prove the competitiveness and overall long term viability of the textile industry, the concerned Ministry of Textile adopted the TUFS scheme, envisaging technology upgradation of the industry.…

ACIT, CC- Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…05.58 lakhs. 4. The ld AO observed that the assessee had collected sales tax but 75% of the same were not paid to the Government. The ld AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd reported in 228 ITR 253 (SC) and held that the sales tax incentive / subsidy eligible to be received is a revenue receipt and would be treated as income u/s 41(1) of the Act on the ground that remission of liability which was allowed as a deduction in the earlier years and added the sums of Rs. 3,72,95,124/- and Rs. 8,05,58,316/- for the Asst Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 r…

DCIT, C.C.Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1552/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…05.58 lakhs. 4. The ld AO observed that the assessee had collected sales tax but 75% of the same were not paid to the Government. The ld AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd reported in 228 ITR 253 (SC) and held that the sales tax incentive / subsidy eligible to be received is a revenue receipt and would be treated as income u/s 41(1) of the Act on the ground that remission of liability which was allowed as a deduction in the earlier years and added the sums of Rs. 3,72,95,124/- and Rs. 8,05,58,316/- for the Asst Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 r…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dicitex Home Furnishing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the above two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 4375/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Hari Om TulsianFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…on account of interest subsidy amounting to Rs.2,84,21,657/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.2,48,57,810/- for the A.Y. 2012-13 treating the same as capital receipt by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), without countering the findings of the AO in Para 5.5 of the assessment order that assessee had received subsidy in the form of 5% reduction in the rate of interest and interest being a revenue expenditure allowable under the Act, any subsidy relating to interest is also to be treated as revenue item. 3. The nature of the business of the a…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dicitex Home Furnishings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the above two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 2147/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Hari Om TulsianFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…on account of interest subsidy amounting to Rs.2,84,21,657/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.2,48,57,810/- for the A.Y. 2012-13 treating the same as capital receipt by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), without countering the findings of the AO in Para 5.5 of the assessment order that assessee had received subsidy in the form of 5% reduction in the rate of interest and interest being a revenue expenditure allowable under the Act, any subsidy relating to interest is also to be treated as revenue item. 3. The nature of the business of the a…

ITO, WD-1(2), Jalpaiguri vs. Shri Manoj Garg, Jalpaiguri

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1442/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 80ISection 80lSection 80r

…ourt. Consequently, without determining the nature of subsidy, including the object thereof, the impact of the subsidy on the operation of the industrial undertaking cannot be determined. The Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. –vs.- CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) lays down an immensely important aspect of a subsidy vis-a-vis liability to pay tax. What the Supreme Court clarifies is that when a subsidy is given for the purpose of setting up of an industry, such a subsidy is a capital receipt. When, however, the subsidy is given for the purpose of operation an industry more profitably, the subsidy woul…

M/S the State Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ev.Corpn. Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 2 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in applying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. vs CIT (SC) reported under 228 ITR 253 as the facts of the appellant’s case are totally different and such action of the CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld AO in disallowing interest paid of rs.2,62,816 for delayed…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Nimko Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7042/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Shivaji B. Ghode, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R

…plex complexes is highly capital intensive, with a long gestation period. 3.3.1. The Honble Bombay High Court relied on Ponni Sugars (306 ITR 392) Where The Hon'ble Supreme Court had explained its previous Judgement in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd vs CIT (228 ITR 253) as under:- ITA No.7042/Mum/14 A.Y. 11-12 [ITO vs. M/s. Nikmo Entertainment Ltd.] Page 3 "The importance of the judgement of this court in Sahney Steel case lies in the fact that it has discussed and analyzed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applied in judging the character of a subsidy. That test is that the charact…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 94/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

…ting up of the industry but after commencement of production for repayment of loan. In such situation, the amount should have been treated as revenue receipt, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The purpose of scheme under which the subsidy is given, has been discussed by the Tribunal. To sustain and prove the competitiveness and overall long term viability of the textile industry, the concerned Ministry of Textile adopted the TUFS scheme, envisaging technology upgradation of the industry.…

Solaris Chemtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5202/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Solaris Chemtech Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Now Amalgated With Solaris Circle-9(1), Chemtech Industries Ltd.), New Delhi. Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacb8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd., Circle 9(1), (Now Amalgated With Solaris New Delhi. Chemtech Industries Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacb8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav,Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18:07.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav,AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 115J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI O.P. KANT Assessment Year: 2006-07 Solaris Chemtech Ltd., vs. ACIT, (Now Amalgated with Solaris Circle-9(1), Chemtech Industries Ltd.), New Delhi. Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACB8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT, Vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd., Circle 9(1), (Now Amalgated with Solaris New Delhi. Chemtech Industries Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACB8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.C. Yadav,Adv. Department by: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR D…

Price Waterhouse Coppers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 2, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2033/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…n for Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2003-04 & 2005-06 business purpose is always revenue expenditure. Therefore by following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd vs CIT reported in (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) , the interest subsidy received by the assessee should also be treated as revenue receipt. 2.2. On first appeal, the ld CITA held that the interest subsidy should not be taxed as revenue receipt but the same needs to be reduced from the cost of the asset and assessee is entitled to claim reduced depreciation accordingly. Aggrieved, the asse…

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Price Water House Coopers Pvt., Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1523/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…n for Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2003-04 & 2005-06 business purpose is always revenue expenditure. Therefore by following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd vs CIT reported in (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) , the interest subsidy received by the assessee should also be treated as revenue receipt. 2.2. On first appeal, the ld CITA held that the interest subsidy should not be taxed as revenue receipt but the same needs to be reduced from the cost of the asset and assessee is entitled to claim reduced depreciation accordingly. Aggrieved, the asse…