DT # 1

Would refund of excise duty and grant of interest subsidy under the incentive scheme formulated by Central Government for public interest, namely, to accelerate industrial development, generate employment and create opportunities for self-employment in state of Jammu and Kashmir be treated as a revenue receipt or a capital receipt?

Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K)
In the present case, the Tribunal contended that excise duty refund and grant of interest subsidy received by the assessee in pursuance of the New Industrial Policy introduced in Jammu and Kashmir were revenue receipt and not capital receipt on the grounds that:-

(i) the aforesaid incentives were not given to establish industrial units because the industry was already established.
(ii) the incentives were available only on commencement of commercial production.
(iii) the incentives were recurring in nature.
(iv) the incentives were not given for acquisition of capital assets.
(v) the incentives were given for easy market accessibility and to run the business more profitably.

The High Court observed that the fact that incentives would become available to industrial units entitled thereto from the date of commencement of commercial production and the fact that these were not granted for creation of new assets were not the sole criteria for determining the nature of subsidy. The fact that such incentives were provided to achieve a public purpose should also be considered to determine the nature of subsidy and hence, such subsidy could not be construed as a production or operational incentive for the benefit of the assessee. Hence, the aforesaid incentives are capital receipts not liable to taxation.