Fertilizers produced by the appellant are under the retention-pricing scheme, wherein the government decides the maximum retail price, and the difference between selling price less than the maximum retail price is paid to the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the difference was the cost recovered from the government, which is directly related to the sale of fertilizer to the farmers. It is a subsidy to the manufacturers to sell the fertilizers at or below the indicated maximum retail price to the farmers. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 279 (SC)  it noted that various types of subsidies received by the manufacturer are eligible for deduction under section 80IB. Hence, the Fertilizer subsidy received under the scheme will also be income derived from the business eligible claim section 80IB.  (AY. 2003-04)