Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. M/s. Meghalaya Steels, has clarified that subsidies allowed to assessee, has to be included under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”, and not under the head “income from other sources” for the purpose of Income Tax assessment.
Dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman observed that so long as profits and gains emanate directly from the business itself, the fact that the immediate source of the subsidies is the Government would make no difference, as it cannot be disputed that the said subsidies are only in order to reimburse, wholly or partially, costs actually incurred by the assessee in the manufacturing and selling of its products.
The Court further said”“profits and gains” spoken of by Sections 80-IB and 80-IC have reference to net profit. And net profit can only be calculated by deducting from the sale price of an article all elements of cost which go into manufacturing or selling it. Thus understood, it is clear that profits and gains are derived from the business of the assessee, namely profits arrived at after deducting manufacturing cost and selling costs reimbursed to the assessee by the Government concerned.”
Referring to Section 28(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act which 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”, the Bench said “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”.
Read the Judgment here.