Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) held that

(i) The claim that the subsidies in question were not taxable was made by the Assessee by filing a valid revised return of income u/s.139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) and therefore such claim was valid and since the AO had not treated the revised return as invalid, the claim of the Assessee that these subsidies were capital receipt not chargeable to tax had to be examined.

(ii) The subsidies in question were capital receipt not chargeable to tax as these subsidies were given with the object of acceleration of industrial development in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and generation of employment in the said State. He also held that the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/S.Shree Balaji Alloys 333 ITR 335 (J & K) ITA No.2 of 2010 Judgement dated 31.01.2010, has in respect of the very same scheme under which the subsidies in question were received by the Assessee has held that the subsidies were capital receipt not chargeable to tax.

12. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the very same subsidy received under the very same scheme of State of Jammu & Kashmir by the Assessee in the present case. We therefore find no grounds to interfere with the conclusions of the CIT(A). The grievance of the revenue in ground No.2 regarding the revised return of income is not valid and has rightly held by the CIT(A) the said revised return of income was valid u/s.139(5) of the Act and was acted upon by the AO. In these circumstances, we find no merit in Ground No.2 raised by the revenue.