Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.51 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 244A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rasoi Limited on 19 May, 2011
that once the purpose of a subsidy is established; the mode of
computation is not relevant as held in the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income tax [1997] 228 ITR 253(SC); CIT Vs. Ponni
sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) and the decision
of our High Court in case of CIT Vs. Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 (Cal.)
against which SLP has been dismissed. The mode of
computation/form of subsidy is irrelevant. The mode of giving
incentive is reimbursement of energy charges. The nature of subsidy
depends on the purpose for which it is given. Hence the assessee
draws support from the decisions already discussed earlier as the
same principle will apply here. Thus, the entire reason behind
receiving the subsidy is setting up of plant in the backward region of
West Bengal, namely, Bankura. Accordingly, we hold the aforesaid
incentive subsidies are 'capital receipts' and is not an 'income' liable
to be taxed in relevant assessment year 2010-11 on the basis of
discussion made above and further taking into consideration the
definition of Income under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
where sub- clause (xviii) has been inserted including 'subsidy' for the
first time by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. April, 2016 i.e. assessment year
2016-17. The amendment has prospective effect and had no effect on
the law on the subject discussed above applicable to the subject
assessment years."