Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.29 seconds)Hyundai Motor India Limited, ... vs Acit Ltu-2, Chennai on 1 September, 2021
Therefore, the Bench in holding the facts and circumstances in the case
of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) and in the case of Nitin
Spinners Ltd. (supra) are different, is not correct. Further, he argued that
the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan upheld the order of the ITAT in
holding that the subsidy granted by Central Government to enhance
Indian export potential in the international market is not an export
incentive, but, rather capital receipt, therefore, not taxable.
Section 28 in Finance Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in Finance Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
M/S. Grasim Industries Limited vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 4 April, 2002
31. On careful reading of the above judgements along with written note
of the ld. AR, we note that the meaning of an unclear or ambiguous word
or phrase can be determined by the words surrounding it and the words
surrounding the words "by whatever name called" are the words subsidy
or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or
reimbursement. Therefore, in our opinion, that the words "by whatever
name called" only qualifies the words "subsidy or grant or cash incentive
or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement" and not the
word "assistance". As canvassed by the ld. AR, we note that the principle
of ejusdem generis focuses on interpreting a general term in a list based
on specific accompanying terms, taking support from the decision of
31 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24,
706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v.
Shankar Prasad (supra), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Grasim Industries Ltd. v.
Collector of Customs (supra), in our opinion, the words "by whatever
name called" do not expand the scope of the word "assistance", but, only
expands the scope of the words "subsidy or grant or cash incentive or
duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement". We thus, hold
that the word "assistance" is independent of the words "by whatever
name called" and words "by whatever name called" are not qualifying the
word "assistance". By applying the same finding, let us see the difference
between the words "reward" and "assistance". As per the note given by
the ld. AR, the term "reward" is defined as a "thing given in recognition of
service, efforts or achievement", whereas, the term "assistance" is
defined as the provision of money, resources or information to help
someone, thus, we find a "reward" is granted in a recognition of services,
an assistance is given to someone as a help, but not in recognition of a
service rendered. Therefore, in our opinion, there is a clear difference
between the words "reward" and "assistance", thus, we hold the "reward"
as in the Foreign Trade Policy - 2015 and the "assistance" as found in
the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act are different from each
32 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24,
706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23
other, the "reward" does not fall within the definition of sub-clause (xviii) of
sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Act.
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 2 April, 2002
31. On careful reading of the above judgements along with written note
of the ld. AR, we note that the meaning of an unclear or ambiguous word
or phrase can be determined by the words surrounding it and the words
surrounding the words "by whatever name called" are the words subsidy
or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or
reimbursement. Therefore, in our opinion, that the words "by whatever
name called" only qualifies the words "subsidy or grant or cash incentive
or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement" and not the
word "assistance". As canvassed by the ld. AR, we note that the principle
of ejusdem generis focuses on interpreting a general term in a list based
on specific accompanying terms, taking support from the decision of
31 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24,
706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v.
Shankar Prasad (supra), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Grasim Industries Ltd. v.
Collector of Customs (supra), in our opinion, the words "by whatever
name called" do not expand the scope of the word "assistance", but, only
expands the scope of the words "subsidy or grant or cash incentive or
duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement". We thus, hold
that the word "assistance" is independent of the words "by whatever
name called" and words "by whatever name called" are not qualifying the
word "assistance". By applying the same finding, let us see the difference
between the words "reward" and "assistance". As per the note given by
the ld. AR, the term "reward" is defined as a "thing given in recognition of
service, efforts or achievement", whereas, the term "assistance" is
defined as the provision of money, resources or information to help
someone, thus, we find a "reward" is granted in a recognition of services,
an assistance is given to someone as a help, but not in recognition of a
service rendered. Therefore, in our opinion, there is a clear difference
between the words "reward" and "assistance", thus, we hold the "reward"
as in the Foreign Trade Policy - 2015 and the "assistance" as found in
the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act are different from each
32 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24,
706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23
other, the "reward" does not fall within the definition of sub-clause (xviii) of
sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Act.
Finance Act, 2015
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) is not
applicable to the facts on hand as Hon'ble High Court was pleased to
decide the question the constitutional validity of insertion of sub-clause
(xviii) to sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Act only, but not its
applicability.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Madras vs M/S. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd on 16 September, 2008
42. On perusal of the above, we note that the question arose for
consideration is when the assessee was given incentive for exploring the
new markets across the globe, whether such incentive be a capital receipt
or revenue receipt. The Tribunal, considering decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.(supra) held
the incentive given by the Government of India for exploring new market
across the globe, is not for running the business but for the expanding the
market area, is a capital receipt and cannot be treated as income either
under section 2(24) or 28 of the Act. As discussed above, the same
finding has been followed by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY
2014-15 & 15-16, thereby, we summarise our finding in answering the
grounds of appeal with reference to the arguments of the ld. DR and ld.
AR, that we hold that the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the
case of Serum Institute of India (P.)