1. Leave granted in the special leave petition.
2. The question that requires our consideration reads thus (see (1998) 234 ITR 667, 669): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the power subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt, not liable to be taxed within the meaning of section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
3. This Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253, has held that power subsidies are of revenue nature and have to be taxed accordingly. We also find that the terms under which the subsidy was given in the present cases clearly suggest that the subsidy was of a revenue nature inasmuch as it went towards reduction of the electricity bills.
4. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The orders under challenge are set aside insofar as they relate to the question quoted above. That question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
5. No order as to costs. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.