Case Law Details

Case Name : UniDeritend Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No.3473/M/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/11/2015
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Courts : All ITAT (5308) ITAT Mumbai (1657)

CA Suraj R. Agrawal

Case Summary:-

Facts of the case:

1. During the financial year 2001-02 the assessee had installed wind energy project at a cost of Rs.1189.87 lakhs.
2. The assessee accordingly applied for the said capital subsidy which was granted to the assessee during the relevant financial year 2007-08 at Rs.20 lakhs.
3. During the subsequent year i.e. F.Y. 2008-09, assessee had to refund back subsidy to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs.

4. The AO observed that the assessee had already claimed 100% depreciation on the windmill, and as such the subsidy was required to be reduced from the cost of asset and hence the assessee had received a benefit of Rs.10 lakhs. He accordingly added the said sum into the income of the assessee.
5. The AO further observed that even otherwise the written Down Value (WDV) of the asset was nil, hence subsidy was to be taxed as short term capital gains under section 50 of the Act.
6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) held that as 100% depreciation was allowed to the assessee on the asset itself; hence the receipt of subsidy was a benefit received and was hence taxable under section 41(1) of the Act.

Ruling of Honorable ITAT/Court:

1. The object of the subsidy was to set up a new unit in a backward area to generate employment therein, then the subsidy was to be treated on capital account and the sales tax incentive was to be treated as capital receipt.
2. The said subsidy (incentive to promote and encourage the installation of wind mill for generation of electricity) being provided to the assessee to encourage the setting up of wind mill to promote generation of energy through non conventional sources, thus, is to be treated as capital receipt.
3. Applicability of the section 41(1) is concerned, it relates to the benefit derived by an assessee in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability and not in respect of capital receipts.
4. ‘Explanation 10’ to ‘Section 43(1)’ is concerned, as per the policy of the government, the subsidy is not given automatically on the acquisition of asset or for the purpose of acquisition of asset.
5. The precondition is that the assessee must install a wind power project and that the wind power plant must be successfully operated with a minimum 12% plant load factor for at least one year.
6. The assessee after successfully operating the plant with a minimum 12% plant load factor for one year had applied for capital subsidy vide letter dated 31.03.03, which subject to fulfillment of certain conditions were ultimately released to the applicant during the financial year i.e. 2007-08 at Rs.20 lakhs.
7. The subsidy was not given for the purpose of acquisition of the asset but on the production of power generation as an incentive to promote through non conventional sources.
8. The subsidy was not granted to the assessee on the acquisition of asset which was acquired in the financial year i.e. 2001-02 but only in the financial year i.e. 2007-08 on achieving more than 12% plant load factor.
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee had to pay back half of the amount of subsidy because of non fulfillment of certain conditions.
10. For computation of deprecation, no part of government subsidy for encouragement for setting up of industrial projects could be deducted from actual cost of WDV of fixed assets, if same is not relatable to acquisition of assets.
11. So far as the contention of the AO that the subsidy is liable to be taxed under section 50 of the Act is concerned, in this case neither there was a transfer of any asset from the block nor did the block has ceased to exist.
12. It is not a case of capital gains by way of transfer but it is only a case of capital receipt as observed above as an incentive by the state government to promote the generation of electricity through non conventional sources.
13. In view of the above, the subsidy received by the assessee is not taxable under section 41(1) neither under section 43(1) and nor under section 50 of the Act.
Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to treat the subsidy received by the assessee as non taxable capital receipts.

Click here to Read Other Analysis by CA Suraj R. Agrawal

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (27874)
Type : Judiciary (12057)
Tags : ITAT Judgments (5490) Suraj R. Agrawal (32)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts