SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation  ||  Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case  ||  Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims  ||  Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation  ||  Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper  ||  Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration  ||  Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal  ||  Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status    

ACIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (16 Jun 2023)

When object of subsidy schemes of State Governments is to encourage development of Multiple Theatre Complexes, incentives are held to be capital in nature

MANU/IB/0285/2023

Direct Taxation

The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) treating entertainment tax exemption in respect of Multiplexes of 9,89,90,747 as capital receipt, not eligible to tax.

The assessee company mainly engaged in the business of entertainment industry including operating multiplex entertainment complexes and related services including sale of food and beverages, advertisement by screen display, standees etc. giving parking facilities, receipt of charges from retail showrooms, restaurants etc. and also distribution of films and generation of power both captive use and sales to third parties, declared sales/turnover and other income at Rs.424.77 Crores for the year under consideration.

The matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT-1, Kolhapur vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune.Present Tribunal have gone through the judgment passed by the Apex Court wherein the identical issue has been raised out of an order passed by the Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee and the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by upholding the order passed by the Bombay High Court to this effect that where object of respective subsidy schemes of State Governments was to encourage development of Multiple Theatre Complexes, incentives has been held to be capital in nature and not revenue receipts.

Thus, on identical facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order passed by the Apex Court, Learned CIT(A) has rightly held in favour of the assessee. Impugned order is without ambiguity so as to warrant interference and thus, the same is upheld. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

Tags : ENTERTAINMENT TAX   EXEMPTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved