DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata V. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2338/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4060 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHRUBAJYOTI ROY JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: AKKAL DHUDEWEWALA LD
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Competent authority; Capital receipt; Revised return
• Section: 13; 22

Judgement Text

1 I.T.A NO 2338/KOL/ 2019 AY 2007 - 08 M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOLKATA BEFORE: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE - PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO . 2338 /KOL/20 19 A.Y: 20 07 - 08 DCIT, CIR - 6(1), KOLKATA VS. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD PAN: AABCB2075J [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI DHRUBAJYOTI ROY, JCIT, LD. SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI AKKAL DHUDEWEWALA, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) : 22 - 10 - 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 10 - 2020 ORDER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, V.P: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) - 7 , KOLKATA DATED 17 - 07 - 2019 9 AND THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED THEREIN RE ADS AS UNDER: - WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E OF RS. 2,55,27,120/ - AS INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE GOVT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE AS AGAINST REVENUE RECEIPT AS TREATED IN THE ORDER U/S. 254 BY THE AO. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 16 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE RE VENUE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY AND K EEPING IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, WHICH ARE S UPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 16 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. EVEN THE LD. COUNSEL HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. THE DELAY OF 16 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN FILING THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY CONDONED AND THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS BEING DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 3 . THE ASSESSEE I N THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY , WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING O F CEMENT, JUTE GOODS ETC. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER 2 I.T.A NO 2338/KOL/ 2019 AY 2007 - 08 M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD . CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 29 - 09 - 2008 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,35,36,36,781/ - . IN THE SAID RETURN, INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,55,27,120/ - RECEIVED DURING THE A.Y UNDER CONSIDERATION TO ONE OF ITS UNIT AT DURGAPUR UNDER WEST BENGAL INVESTMENT SCHEME, 2000 WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE SAID AMOUNT HOWEVER, WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAX ON THE GROUND THAT IT CONSTITUTED A CAPITAL RECEIPT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE 2000 SCHEME WAS FORMULATED BY THE WEST BENGAL STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY IN THE STATE AND IT WAS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF UNITS TO BE SET UP AND ALSO TO EXPANSION OF EXI STING UNITS HAVING INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS. THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE FORM OF RELAXATION OF THE TAX WAS MORE FOR ENCOURAGEMENT TO ENTREPRENEUR S TO ESTABLISH/EXPAND INDUSTRIAL UNIT IN THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL RATHER THAN TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF SPECIFIC CAPITAL ASSETS IN THOSE INDUSTRIAL UNITS. HE HELD THAT THE IN CENTIVE WAS WITH THE OBJECT OF SUPPLEMENTING TRADE RECEIPT AND PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RATHER THAN TO ASSIST THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRING A CAPITAL ASSET. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ONLY AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND THE SUBSIDY GRANTED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF P RODUCTION BEING OPERATIONAL SUBSIDY WAS OF REVENUE NATURE. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION OF THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY IN QUESTION. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION WAS OTHERWISE ALSO NOT ENTER TAINABLE AS THE SAME WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN THE I.T RETURN OR REVISED RETURN AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD REPORTED IN 284 ITR 323 (SC). 4. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF IND USTRIAL PROMOTION ALLOWANCE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ASSISTANCE WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIB UNAL FOR THE AY S 2008 - 09 TO 2010 - 11 , T HE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ASSISTANCE TO BE CAPITAL IN NA TURE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS . THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGR EED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE VARIOUS ORDERS OF THIS 3 I.T.A NO 2338/KOL/ 2019 AY 2007 - 08 M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD . TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE O N SIMILAR ISSUE . IN ONE OF SUCH ORDERS PASSED FOR THE AYS 2008 - 09 TO 2009 - 10 (ITA NOS. 971/KOL/20 12 & ORS, DATED 25 - 08 - 2017 ), SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ASSISTANCE WAS ALLOWED BY TH E TRIBUNAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE O N RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE ENTIRE WEST BENGAL INCENTIVE SCHEME 2000 AND ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY APPROVING THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING UNIT THEREBY APPROVING THE FACT OF ASSESSEE FALLING UNDER THE CATEGO RY OF 'MEGA UNIT' UNDER THE SAID SCHEME. WE FIND THAT SUBSIDY COULD BE REDUCED FROM THE COST ONLY IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE COST FOR ACQUIRING THE ASSET WAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY MET OUT OF THE SUBSIDY. IN ORDER TO APPLY THE PROVISO , IT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE SUBSIDY HAD BEEN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USED TO ACQUIRE THE ASSET THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO EXACTLY QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USED FOR ACQUIRING THE ASSET. FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE PROVISO, ALSO IT HAS TO BE FOUND T HAT THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USING THE SUBSIDY. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE 2000 SCHEME AND THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AND ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE THAT THE ASSISTANCE WAS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE AFTER THE COMMENCE MENT OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL CAP AND WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALES TAX LIABILITY O F THE YEAR O F CLAIM. THE INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ASSISTANCE WAS CLEARLY NOT USED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO ACQUIRE THE ASSETS NOR ANY PART OF THE COST OF THE ASSETS WAS MET DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ASSISTANCE. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASST YEAR 20(1'7 - 08 IN ITA NO. 683 & 581/KOL/20 11 DATED 8.12.2014 WHEREIN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE WERE AS UND E R: - ASSESSEE GROUND NO. 1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED C I T (APPEALS) THOUGH HOLDING THAT SALES - TAX INCENTIVE OF RS. 123800 0 ALLOWED BY THE STATE GOVT. IS T HE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT HUT ERRED ILL DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( AO) FIN REDUCING THE LAME FROM THE COST OF FIXED ASSETS F OR THE PU R POSE OF COMPUTING DEPRECIATION BY APPL Y ING THE EXPLANATION 10 TO SEC 43( 1 ) OF I.T.ACT. REVENUE GROUND NO.2 THAI LD. CIT(A) - VI KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX SUBSIDY Y RECEI V ED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE INCOME OF RS. 12,38,000/ - THE DECISION RENDERED THEREON BY THIS TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND WHICH ARE UNDISPUTED. IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE 'S ISSUE OF SALES TAX INCENTIVE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE FOR THE REASON THAT THE VERY SCHEME UNDER WHICH 4 I.T.A NO 2338/KOL/ 2019 AY 2007 - 08 M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD . THE EXPANSION O F THE UNIT AND SUBSID Y UNDER RA JA STHAN SALES TAX SCHEME. 1998 WAS RECEIVED EXPLAINS THE PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME AS INCURRING CAPITA L EXPE NDITURE F OR INSTALLATION O F PLANT AND MACHINERY AND FOR ELIGIBLE FOR FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT. EVEN THE ISSUE OF ASSESSEE IS COVERED IN ITS FAVOUR BY TRIBUNAL 'S DECISION IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE ALL ALONG FROM AYS 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 07. IT IS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE R E VENUE THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED BY HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, DESPITE A QUERY FROM THE BENCH. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AND TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE SALES TAX SUBSIDY RECEIPT AS 'CAPITAL IN NATURE'. 8. IN RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF APPLICATION OF EXPLANATION - 10 TO SEC. 43(1) OF THE ACT WE FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE RAJASTHAN GO VT . HAS FRAMED A INCENTIVE SCHEME I.E R.S.T/C.S.T EXEMPTIONS SCHEME 1998 FOR ENCOURAGEM ENT OF SETTING UP OF INDUSTRIAL PROJECT OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PROJECT S . IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF THE SUBSIDY WAS RESTRICTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE VALUE OF FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN LAND, BUILDING, PLANT & MACHINERY BUT NO PART OF THE SUBSIDIARY WAS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THE ANY FIXED ASSETS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUBSIDY WAS TO MEET A PORTION OF COST OF ASSET. ACCORDING TO US, ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY NOT REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY RECEI VED FROM THE ACTUAL COST/WDV OF THE FIXED ASSETS WHILE CLAIMING DEPRECIATION. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT REVENUE DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AYS 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 07 ADDED THE SUBSIDY AMOUNT AS REVENUE RECEIPT BUT TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE RECEIPT AS CAPITAL, ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P . J CHEMICALS LTD (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND HELD THAT WHERE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY IS INTENDED AS AN INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE ENTREPRENEURS TO MOVE TO BACKWARD AREAS AND ESTABLISH INDUSTRIES, THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE FIXED CAPITAL COST, WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE SUBSIDY, BEING ONLY A MEASURE ADOPTED UNDER THE SCHEME TO QUANTIFY THE FINANCIAL AID, IS NOT A PAYMENT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY , TO MEET ANY PORTION OF THE ACTUAL COST. THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY CANNOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE ACTUAL COST UNDER SEC. 43(1) FOR THE PURPOSE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT IF GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY IS AN INCENTIVE NOT F OR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF MEETING A PORTION OF THE COST OF THE ASSETS, THOUGH QUANTIFIED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH COST, IT DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF PAYMENT INTENDED EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO MEET THE ACTUAL COST. BY IMPLICATION, THE ABO VE JUDGMENT ALSO PROVIDES THAT IF THE SUBSIDY IS INTENDED FOR MEETING A PORTION OF THE COST OF THE ASSETS, THEN SUCH SUBSIDY SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE ACTUAL COST, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEPRECIATION. AS PER HONBLE SUPREME COURT, LAW IS THAT IF TH E SUBSIDY IS ASSET - SPECIFIC, SUCH SUBSIDY GOES TO REDUCE THE ACTUAL COST. IF THE SUBSIDY IS TO ENCOURAGE SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRY, IT DOES NOT GO TO REDUCE THE ACTUAL COST, EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY WAS QUANTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THE PERCENTAG E OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LAW IS ALREADY SETTLED ON THE SUBJECT. NOW, THE ONLY WAVERING IS WITH REFERENCE TO EXPLANATION 10 PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 43(1) OF THE ACT. THE SAID EXPLANATION PROVIDES THAT WHERE A PORTION OF THE COST OF AN ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MET DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR ANY AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED UNDER ANY LAW OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON, IN THE FORM OF A SUBSIDY OR GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT (BY WHATEVER NAME CA LLED), THEN, SO MUCH OF THE COST AS IS RELATABLE TO SUCH SUBSIDY OR GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSET TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER, PROVIDED 5 I.T.A NO 2338/KOL/ 2019 AY 2007 - 08 M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD . THEREUNDER, THAT WHERE SUCH SUBSIDY OR GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCH NATURE THAT IT CANNOT BE DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE ASSET ACQUIRED, SO MUCH OF THE AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO THE TOTAL SUBSIDY OR REIMBURSEMENT OR GRANT THE SAME PROPORTION AS SUCH ASSET BEARS TO ALL THE ASSETS IN RESPECT OF OR WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE S UBSIDY OR GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT IS SO RECEIVED, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSET TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO INVOKE EXPLANATION 10, IT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE SUBSIDY WAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USED FOR ACQUIRING AN ASSET. THIS IS AGAIN A QUESTION OF FACT. THE RELATABLE SUBSIDY TO SUCH ASSET CAN BE REDUCED FROM THE COST ONLY IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE COST FOR ACQUIRING THAT ASSET WAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY MET OUT OF THE SUBSIDY. LIKEWISE IN THE PROVISO, IT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW T HAT THE SUBSIDY HAS BEEN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USED TO ACQUIRE AN ASSET BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXACTLY QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USED FOR ACQUIRING THE ASSET. HERE ALSO, A FINDING OF FACT IS NECESSARY THAT AN ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BY DIR ECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USING THE SUBSIDY. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION AND THE PROVISO THERETO DO NOT DILUTE THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P.J CHEMICALS LTD (SUPRA) THAT ASSET - WISE SUBSIDY ALONE CAN BE REDUCED FROM THE ACTUAL COST. THE ABOV E EXPLANATION AND THE PROVISO THEREIN TO EXPLAIN THE LAW. THEY ARE NOT BRINGING ANY NEW LAW DIFFERENT FROM THE LAW CONSIDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASES. 9. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LEGAL POSITION EXPLA INED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P.J CHEMICALS LTD (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUBSIDY RECEIPT SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE ACTUAL COST OF THE FIXED ASSETS FOR COMPUTING DEPRECIATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS IS SUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL SUPRA, WE HOLD THAT THE IPA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THE SAME NEED NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ASSETS IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 43(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6 . THE AFORESAID DECISION RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AYS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2010 - 11 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13 - 09 - 2017 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 686 & 1101/KOL /2014. THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THUS IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AYS. 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME , WE UPHO LD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION ASSISTANCE (IPA) BY TREATING THE SAME TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. 6 I.T.A NO 2338/KOL/ 2019 AY 2007 - 08 M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD . 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCTOBER, 2020 SD/ - SD/ - A.T. VARKEY P.M. JAGTAP JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) DATED 29 - 10 - 2020 ** PP(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FOR WARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT/ DEPARTMENT: THE DCIT, CIR - 6(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, 6 TH FL., P - 7 CHOWRINGHEE SQ., KOLKATA - 69. 2 RESPONDENT/ ASSESSEE: M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD BIRLA BUILDING 9/1 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 1. 3. CIT, 4. CIT(A), KOLKATA. 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA