Back to feed Read the full judgment
IndiaCivil
M/S. Mepco Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Company ...
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Oct 7, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1090
- Judges
- Prashant Kumar Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar
AI breakdown
- Mepco Industries argued that their ₹16,20,745 electricity subsidy from the Government of Pondicherry was a capital receipt, not subject to tax.
- The Supreme Court of India ruled that the subsidy is a revenue receipt and taxable.
- The key reason was that the subsidy reduced ongoing electricity costs for running the business, not setting it up as capital.
Outcome
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
M/S. Mepco Industries Ltd
Respondent
Commissioner Of Income Tax Company ...
Judgment text (excerpt)
M/S. Mepco Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Company ... on 7 October, 2026
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
2026 INSC 1090 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8694 OF 2012
M/S. MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI ... RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. The present Appeal concerns the nature of the electricity subsidy of Rs.
16,20,745/- received by the appellant-assessee, M/s. Mepco Industries Ltd.,
from the Government of Pondicherry for the Assessment Year 1997-98, and
the question whether the said subsidy constituted a capital receipt, as
claimed by the appellant, or a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-
tax Act, 19611, as held by the Courts below. The appellant is a limited
company engaged in the manufacture of potassium chlorate. For the relevant
assessment year, it received the aforesaid amount as electricity subsidy and
treated the same as a capital receipt.
2. The subsidy was granted under the Scheme of Power Subsidy2 of the
Government of Pondicherry, which had been in operation since 27.11.1975.
The scheme was framed with the object of fostering industrial growth in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2026.10.07
17:13:00 IST
Reason:
1 For short ‘IT Act’
2 Hereinafter referred as ‘Scheme’
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8694 OF 2012 Page 1 of 12
Union Territory and, under the relevant pattern, provided subsidy on power
charges for a specified period after commencement of production. The rate of
subsidy was 33⅓% of the power charges for the first three years, 20% for the
f…

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.