Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid return; that the subsidy of Rs. 2,32,51,000/- received by ITA Nos. 4378, 5127/Del/16 the assessee in the form of sales tax concession is capital receipt but for the purpose of depreciation the subsidy amount cannot be reduced from the cost of the capital asset as claimed by the assessee; that the disallowance under section 37(1) is restricted to the amount of Rs. 1505/- being penalty on excise duty giving relief of Rs. 2,94,436/- to the assessee; that the disallowance under section 14A be restricted to Rs. 1,42,229/- as made by the assessee itself giving relief of Rs. 2,54,561/-; that the disallowance of Rs. 2,31,97,600/- being commission paid to the parties resident of USA made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is confirmed.

5.3 The Ld. DR did not controvert the above submissions of the Ld. AR.

6. In the light of the factual matrix as submitted by the Ld. AR of the assesee we have no hesitation in holding that the issue that the sales tax subsidy received by the assesee from Haryana Govt. is capital receipt is covered in favour of the assesee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case in WP(C)8941/2015 dated 07.12.2017 (copy at pages 145-148 of Paper Book) 6.1 As regards, the objection of the Revenue that the assessee declared the impugned subsidy as its income in its original return for AY 2011-12 presently under consideration, it is an admitted fact that the assessee filed revised return under section 139(5) treating the same as capital receipt and that the Ld. CIT(A) has held the revised return as valid return in the eye of law. The Revenue has accepted this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and is not in appeal before the Tribunal on the validity or otherwise of the revised return.