Income Tax Officer vs Shreejee Chitra Mandir on 28 July, 2005
8.6. As far as the decision of Shreeji Chitra Mandir (supra) is concerned, as cited by the Id.DR
Mr.Gupta, the Respected Co-ordinate Bench Indore has examined the scheme. The subsidy was to be
given in installments as determined by the administration. Each eligible cinema house was required to
file application in prescribed form to the Collector. After the receipt of application from the owners of
the cinema houses, the Collector of the District will make such enquiries as he may consider it
13 ITA Nos. 272, 273, 441 & 1097/A/2010
. A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08
necessary and obtain necessary information to make recommendations to the Commissioner of Excise,
who in turn was to make the payment of subsidy under intimation to the Collector. It was also found by
the Tribunal that if the owners of the Cinema Houses have taken loan from Rashtriya Film
Development Corporation or M.P.State Film Development Corporation, then the subsidy would be
given through them. On that factual finding, a distinction was drawn by the Tribunal that there was a
difference between subsidising the capital outlay and subsidising the running of the business. A clear-
cut findings was given that grant-in-aid received by that assessee was not related to any asset or
capital outlay, it was received after completion of the cinema house and it was to assist the assessee to
run the business of cinema house. It was held that subsidy was not given for construction but the
payment of subsidy was nothing but supplementary trade receipt. Ld.DR has therefore relied upon
these two decisions, however, we have noticed that the facts were distinct from the facts from the case
in hand, hence hereby hold that these two precedents being distinguishable on facts therefore do not
apply on the facts of this case.