Ambuja Cement Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is capital receipt and does not come within definition of income under section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and when, a receipt is not a in the nature of income, it cannot form part of book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Facts-
The Assessing Officer has raised the grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exclusion of sales tax incentive and excise duty exemption while computing the Book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, whereas the same are in the nature of revenue incentive or not.
Conclusion-
We further noted that Hon’ble Kolkata High Court, in the case of CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 93/266 Taxman 237 Ltd. had considered an identical issue and after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. held that when a receipt is not in the character of income as defined under section 2(24) of the I.T. Act, 1961, then it cannot form part of the book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Hon’ble High court, further observed that sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is capital receipt and does not come within definition of income under section 2(24) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and when, a receipt is not a in the nature of income, it cannot form part of book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961.
We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the sales tax incentive subsidy for computing book profit under section 115 JB of the Act.
