आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ঒ी एस.एस. िव(cid:695)नेআ रिव, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं ঒ी जगदीश, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम঴ ।

Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &

Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3234 and 3059/Chny/2024 िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Vs. Ramco Cements Limited, of Income Tax, Ramamandiram, Rajapalayam, Corporate Circle 2, Virudhunagar District – 626 117, Madurai. Tamil Nadu.

[PAN:AABCM8375L]

(अपीलाथ५/Appellant) (ঋ(cid:529)थ५/Respondent) अपीलाथ५ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CiT ঋ(cid:529)थ५ की ओर से/Respondent by :

Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &

Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A.

सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 09.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against separate orders dated 17.10.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12 and order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) – 16, Chennai for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

3. First, we shall take appeal in I.T.A. No. 3234/Chny/2024 for AY

2011-12 for adjudication.

4. Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant-Revenue is general in nature and requires no adjudication.

5. Grounds No. 2 to 5 raised by the Appellant-Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the Industrial Promotion Assistance received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme is capital receipt and non-taxable.

6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had credited in its books of account, an amount of ₹.11,33,14,261/- receivable from the West Bengal Government Incentive Scheme 2004. The assessee claimed that the said Govt. Subsidy received/receivable for setting up of industry is not a taxable income. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim and added to the income of the assessee. In appeal, by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 2196/Chny/2019 dated 03.07.2024, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

7. The ld. DR. Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

8. The ld. AR Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A., relied on the order of the ld.

CIT(A).

9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue in para 4.1 of the impugned order, wherein, by placing reliance on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 2196/Chny/2019 held that the subsidy received by the assessee under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme is capital in nature. The relevant portion in para 4.1 is reproduced herein below:

4.1 The Appellant has, in the course of Faceless Appellant proceedings filed order of Hon'ble ITAT dated 03.07.2024 in the appellants own case wherein both the issues have been decided in favour of the appellate. In the order in ITA No. 2196/Chny/2019 in respect of AY 2014-15 the Hon'ble 'D' Bench of ITAT Chennai has allowed the appeal of the appellant. On the issue of West Bengal Incentive scheme the Hon'ble ITAT has held the following in the Para-3.5and 3.6 of their order:

"3.5 The Ld. AR has further submitted that reliance on the decision of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (supra) is incorrect since the applicability of said decision to IPA subsidy received under WB incentive Scheme was specifically examined by Calcutta High Court in the case of Rasoi Limited (supra). This decision has become final since Special Leave Petition (SLP) of the department