Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an income-tax reference made at the instance of Revenue under Section 256 (1) of the IT Act by the Tribunal in RA No. 11/ind/1998, dt. 30th April, 1998, which arises out of an order dt. 17th Oct. , 1997, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 1164/ind/1993 to answer following question of law said to arise out of the aforementioned order : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the receipt of power subsidy was of capital in nature and was not liable to tax ? ( 2. ) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri M. Phadke, learned counsel for the assessee. ( 3. ) AT the outset, we wish to point out as to how and in what manner the Tribunal decided the question referred while deciding the appeal filed by the assessee : Para 2--Ground No. 1 relates to the disallowance of power subsidy received by the assessee in respect of its industrial unit established in backward area. With regard to this issue, our attention was drawn to the decision of the MP High Court in Hind Syntex; MCC No. 314 of 1992 in which their Lordships have held that the power subsidy was given as an incentive for establishing industry in backward area. It was thus a capital investment and not supplements the profit of the assessee. It was a receipt of capital nature and, therefore, not liable to tax. 3. We have carefully perused the order of the Honble MP High Court and the findings of the CIT (A) and after its careful perusal, we are of the view that this issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. We, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the addition. ( 4. ) WITH respect we may say that Tribunal has not discussed any issue while deciding the question except to quote one judgment of High Court and concluded the issue by saying that the issue has to be answered in favour of assessee. ( 5. We, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the addition. ( 4. ) WITH respect we may say that Tribunal has not discussed any issue while deciding the question except to quote one judgment of High Court and concluded the issue by saying that the issue has to be answered in favour of assessee. ( 5. ) THE question, whether any amount received by an assessee by way of subsidy is to be taxed in the hands of assessee as capital receipt or revenue receipt cannot be decided one way or the other unless the authorities examine the scheme pursuant to which the amount is paid to assessee. In other words, in order to decide as to whether a particular subsidy given to assessee is capital or revenue, the same cannot be decided by its nomenclature but it requires an analytical examination of the entire scheme. Before one is able to come to its conclusion, it is necessary to find out as to what is the object of the scheme, its nature, manner, mode of payment, its reimbursement, benefit conferred upon the assessee. It is these factors which determine the character of the amount received which, in turn, determines its nature from income-tax point of view. If the amount is paid by way of subsidy for setting up a plant/machinery prior to commencement, then it is regarded in the nature of capital but when it is given for running the business, i. e. , after the production has begun in the plant, then it may well be regarded as revenue receipt in the hands of assessee. ( 6. ) EVERY subsidy (known as power subsidy) cannot be regarded as capital subsidy. It can be either capital or revenue. Indeed, the law on this point is well explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT , AIR1997 SC 3968 , 1997 ECR787 (NULL ), [1997 ]228 ITR253 (SC ), JT1997 (8 )SC 173 , 1997 (6 )SCALE175 , (1997 )7 SCC764 , [1997 ]supp4 SCR189 It is in this case, their Lordships have held that before coming to a conclusion as to what is the true nature of the amount for holding it to be capital or revenue, it is necessary to examine the scheme of subsidy. ( 7. ( 7. ) WHEN we peruse the order of Tribunal and the statement of case drawn to this Court for answering the question, we regretfully note that Tribunal neither discussed the scheme of power subsidy applicable to the case of assessee nor gave any finding, nor even referred to it and nor mentioned in the statement of case. It was not even enclosed along with the statement of case. As a result of this though the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of assessee but without examining the same in accordance with law. We cannot countenance with such approach of the Tribunal. ( 8. ) WE thus decline to answer the question referred to us. No costs.