Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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