Search Results For: capital vs. revenue receipt


CIT vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bifurcation of lease rentals into interest and loan recovery: An assessee can only be taxed on "real income". The bifurcation of lease rental is not an artificial calculation. Lease equalization is an essential step in the accounting process to ensure that real income from the transaction in the form of revenue receipts only is captured for the purposes of income tax. The Guidance Note issued by the ICAI carries great weight. The method of accounting prescribed in such a Guidance Note, in order to compute real income and offering the same for taxation, cannot be disregarded by the AO unless such action falls within the scope and ambit of S. 145(3) of the IT Act

The method of accounting followed, as derived from the ICAI’s Guidance Note, is a valid method of capturing real income based on the substance of finance lease transaction. The rule of substance over form is a fundamental principle of accounting, and is in fact, incorporated in the ICAI’s Accounting Standards on Disclosure of Accounting Policies being accounting standards which is a kind of guidelines for accounting periods starting from 01.04.1991. It is a cardinal principle of law that the difference between capital recovery and interest or finance income is essential for accounting for such a transaction with reference to its substance. If the same was not carried out, the Respondent would be assessed for income tax not merely on revenue receipts but also on non-revenue items which is completely contrary to the principles of the IT Act and to its Scheme and spirit

CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: December 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Taxability of subsidies: A subsidy granted by the Govt to achieve the objects of acceleration of industrial development and generation of employment is capital in nature and not revenue. The fact that the incentives are not available unless and until commercial production has started, and that the incentives are not given to the assessee expressly for the purpose of purchasing capital assets or for the purpose of purchasing machinery is irrelevant. The object has to be seen and not the form in which it is granted

The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry to set up such highly capital intensive entertainment centers. This being the case, it is difficult to accept Mr. Narasimha’s argument that it is only the immediate object and not the larger object which must be kept in mind in that the subsidy scheme kicks in only post construction, that is when cinema tickets are actually sold

Bhushan Steel vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 20, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Taxability of subsidies: Supreme Court stays judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips which held that if the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, the subsidy is revenue in nature and is taxable as profits

Taxability of subsidies: Supreme Court stays judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd which held that if the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, the subsidy is revenue in nature and is taxable as profits

CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Taxability of mesne profits: High Court's approach of dismissing the Dept's appeal only because the Tribunal relied on Narang Overseas 111 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB) and the appeal against which had been dismissed for non-removal of defects is not correct. The High Court ought to decide the question on merits

High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein only on the ground that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal i.e. in the case of Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Mumbai – (2008) 111 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)], the appeal was preferred before the High Court and for non-removal of the defects the appeal has been dismissed. We are of the considered opinion that this was not a correct approach of the High Court for the simple reason that merely because one authority has followed its own decision in another case and that matter in appeal has been dismissed on technical grounds still the High Court has to decide the question on merits

Premlata Purshottam Paldiwal vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 9, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Interest on interim compensation received pending final disposal by the High Court is income if there is no direction given by the Court. The source of funds to earn income cannot determine the taxability of the income. The fact that the assessee may have to return the compensation and interest on the principle of restitution as provided under S. 144 of the Civil Procedure Code is not relevant because restitution is not a certainty. Paragon Construction 274 ITR 413 (Del) distinguished

The source of funds to earn income cannot determine the taxability of the income earned on the capital amount which has been invested. This in the absence of any statutory mandate otherwise. The income earned would be chargeable to tax irrespective of the source of the funds from which the income has been earned. In the mercantile system of accounting, income accrues when the right to receive the same arises, even though the actual receipt could be at a later date. In the present case it is an accepted position that the right to receive the interest from the fixed deposits already accrued to the assessee. In such circumstances, the interest on the fixed deposit would be chargeable to tax, as sought to be done by the Assessing Officer under the head income from other sources

CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1995-96
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Whether subsidy is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt: If the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, it means that the policy makers envision greater profitability as an incentive for investors to expand units. Such subsidy is revenue in nature and is taxable as profits

How a state frames its policy to achieve its objectives and attain larger developmental goals depends upon the experience, vision and genius of its representatives. Therefore, to say that the indication of the limit of subsidy as the capital expended, means that it replenished the capital expenditure and therefore, the subsidy is capital, would not be justified. The specific provision for capital subsidy in the main scheme and the lack of such a subsidy in the supplementary scheme (of 1991) meant that the recipient, i.e. the assessee had the flexibility of using it for any purpose. Unlike in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC), the absence of any condition towards capital utilization meant that the policy makers envisioned greater profitability as an incentive for investors to expand units, for rapid industrialization of the state, ensuring greater employment. Clearly, the subsidy was revenue in nature

JSW Steel Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 41(1)/ 115JB: Entire law explained whether remission of a loan can be assessed as income u/s 41(1) and if not whether the same can be added to "book profit" for purposes of MAT tax u/s 115JB

Waiver of loan taken for acquisition of a capital asset and on capital account cannot be taxed u/s 41(1), as it is neither on revenue account nor a remission of a trading liability so as to attract tax in the year of remission. A capital surplus thus, in respect of waiver of loan amount cannot be regarded as being amount available for distribution through the profit & loss account. This follows from the very definition of expression ‘capital reserve’ that it must be accounted directly to the credit of the capital reserve account instead of being credited to the profit & loss account so as to ensure that it is not left for being distributed through the profit & loss account

Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 7, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 4: Law laid down in Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 (SC) and Ponni Sugars 306 ITR 392 (SC) regarding the taxability of subsidies as a revenue receipt does not apply to voluntary subsidies (subvention) paid by a holding company to its loss making subsidiary. The said subsidy is to protect the capital investment of the holding company and is a capital receipt in the hands of the recipient

The question of law that was presented before the High Court, namely, whether subvention was capital or revenue receipt, was sought to be answered by the High Court by making a reference to two decisions of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad versus Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.-I, Hyderabad [(1997) 7 SCC 764]/ 228 ITR 253 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras versus Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited [(2008) 9 SCC 337]/ 306 ITR 392 (SC). The view expressed by this Court that unless the grant-in-aid received by an Assessee is utilized for acquisition of an asset, the same must be understood to be in the nature of a revenue receipt was held by the High Court to be a principle of law applicable to all situations. The aforesaid view tends to overlook the fact that in both Ponni Sugars (supra) and Sahney Steel (supra) the subsidies received were in the nature of grant-in-aid from public funds and not by way of voluntary contribution by the parent Company as in the present cases. The above apart, the voluntary payments made by the parent Company to its loss making Indian company can also be understood to be payments made in order to protect the capital investment of the Assessee Company. If that is so, we will have no hesitation to hold that the payments made to the Assessee Company by the parent Company for Assessment Years in question cannot be held to be revenue receipts

G. S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 21, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Refundable deposits received by a housing company for allotment of flats and future maintenance is business income. However, share capital received for allotment of flats is a capital receipt and not income. The principles of mutuality does not apply to such transactions

The Karnataka High Court held, following Shree Nirmal Commercial vs. CIT 193 ITR 694 (Bom) and 213 ITR 361 (FB), that share capital and refundable deposits received by a housing company from its shareholders in consideration of allotting area to them is assessable as business profits. It was also held that the principles of mutuality are not applicable. It was also held that deposits received from the shareholders for future maintenance is assessable as business income. On appeal to the Supreme Court HELD

Jitendra Kumar Soneja vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Compensation received by flat owner from builder for hardship caused due to redevelopment of the building is a non-taxable receipt and has to be reduced from the cost of the flat. Amount received from builder to meet rental costs during the redevelopment is also not taxable as income

It is elementary that the connotation of income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any capital gains chargeable under section 45”, and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot be taken as income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmraje R. Kardambande vs CIT (195 ITR 877) has observed that “..,, we hold that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore, (emphasis supplied by us), are not income within meaning of section 2(24) of the Income tax Act….” This clearly implies, as is the settled legal position in our understanding, that a capital receipt in principle is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and a receipt cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of revenue receipt or is brought within the ambit income by way of a specific provision in the Act

Top