Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ; the subsidy was clearly for purpose of upgrading machinery and plant and for acquiring capital assets and not for purpose of day-to-day business operations of assessee, held that quantum of subsidy received by assessee was a capital receipt.
CIT v. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 512/( 2019) 416 ITR 458 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax –Capital or revenue- Subsidy- Technology upgradation of existing units as well as to set up new units with latest technology to enhance their viability and competitiveness in domestic and international markets- Capital receipts [ S.28(i)]