Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TDS :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Kolkata Benches : Kolkata. Sub : Cause List For The Cases Fixed On Friday The 15/12/2017
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
 Sunbeam Auto Private Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Sc Johnson Products Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-8, New Delhi
  Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Stovekraft India vs. CIT (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
 CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court)
 DCIT vs. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. B. C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/s International Tractor Ltd.
 Maharaj Garage & Company vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd (Supreme Court)
March, 16th 2016

S. 80-IB(4): Subsidies (such as transport subsidy, Interest subsidy and power subsidy) paid to the assessee with the object of reducing the cost of production constitutes \"profits derived from the business of the industrial undertaking\" and is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB. Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC) is distinguishable on facts

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act on the profits and gains of business of the industrial undertaking. The assessee included the following subsidies in the profits and gains, namely, Transport subsidy, Interest subsidy and Power subsidy.The Assessing Officer held that the amounts received by the assessee as subsidies were revenue receipts and did not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IB(4) of the Act and, accordingly, the assessee’s claim for deduction on account of the three subsidies aforementioned were disallowed. This was upheld by the CIT(A) though reversed by the ITAT. The High Court also upheld the claim of the assessee (see (CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 235). On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) A series of decisions have made a distinction between “profit attributable to” and “profit derived from” a business. In one of the early judgments, namely, Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II, (1978) 2 SCC 644, this Court had to construe Section 80-E of the Income Tax Act, which referred to profits and gains attributable to the business of generation or distribution of electricity. This Court held that it cannot be disputed that the expression “attributable to” is certainly wider in import than the expression “derived from”.

(ii) In Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax 317 ITR 218 (SC)/ 2009 (9) SCC 328, what this Court was concerned with was an export incentive, which is very far removed from reimbursement of an element of cost. A DEPB drawback scheme is not related to the business of an industrial undertaking for manufacturing or selling its products. DEPB entitlement arises only when the undertaking goes on to export the said product, that is after it manufactures or produces the same. Pithily put, if there is no export, there is no DEPB entitlement, and therefore its relation to manufacture of a product and/or sale within India is not proximate or direct but is one step removed. Also, the object behind DEPB entitlement, as has been held by this Court, is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty payment on the import content of the export product which is provided for by credit to customs duty against the export product. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that such duty exemption scheme is derived from profits and gains made by the industrial undertaking or business itself.

(iii) As regards CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd 317 ITR 353 (Del) from which an SLP preferred in the Supreme Court was dismissed, this judgment also concerned itself with Section 80-IB of the Act, in which it was held that refund of excise duty should not be excluded in arriving at the profit derived from business for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act.

(iv) As regards the contention that as the subsidies that are received by the assessee would be income from other sources referable to Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, any deduction that is to be made, can only be made from income from other sources and not from profits and gains of business, which is a separate and distinct head as recognised by Section 14 of the Income Tax Act, it is not correct that assistance by way of subsidies which are reimbursed on the incurring of costs relatable to a business, are under the head “income from other sources”, which is a residuary head of income that can be availed only if income does not fall under any of the other four heads of income. Section 28(iii)(b) specifically states that income from cash assistance, by whatever name called, received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India, will be income chargeable to income tax under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. If cash assistance received or receivable against exports schemes are included as being income under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”, it is obvious that subsidies which go to reimbursement of cost in the production of goods of a particular business would also have to be included under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”, and not under the head “income from other sources”.

(Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2009 (9) SCC 328, Supriya Gill v. CIT (2010) 193 Taxman 12 (Himachal Pradesh), CIT v. Sterling Foods, 237 ITR 579 (1999), Jai Bhagwan Oil and Flour Mills v. Union of India and Others (2009) 14 SCC 63, Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. – I, Hyderabad, (1997) 7 SCC 764 C.I.T. v. Cement Manufacturing Company Limited, and CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd., 317 ITR 353 referred).

 

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions