Allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Basti Sugar Mills Co.Ltd.

Delhi HC1 Feb 2018ITA/830/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue appellant's dispute regarding capital vs revenue nature of sugar quota incentives. Following Supreme Court precedent in Ponni Sugars, the court held the subsidy was capital in nature, answering the framed question against the Revenue.

What did the court decide?

The substantial question of law was answered against the appellant Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee; appeal disposed of.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Basti Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~R-70.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA No. 830/2005

¶4

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX-VI, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia & Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S BASTI SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Nemo.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

O R D E R % 01.02.2018

¶9

This appeal by the Revenue relates to Assessment Year 1995-96 and arises from order dated 22^nd February, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1354/D/99 in the case of The Basti Sugar Mills Company Limited.

¶10

By order dated 30^th November, 2005, the following substantial question of law was framed:-

¶11

“Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the incentive given by the Government in the form of higher free sugar quota is in the nature of capital receipts exempt from tax?”

¶12

We would not like to elaborate and refer to the assessment order and the appellate orders as the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the

¶13

decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited , [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC).

¶14

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue has accepted that the nature and character of the subsidy and reason for grant of the same was identical to the subsidy examined in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited (supra), though the scheme applicable was relating to a different period.

¶15

The fact that the schemes applicable relate to different periods would not be material and what is relevant is whether the terms and conditions of grant/scheme were identical. This would determine the nature and character of the subsidy whether it was “capital” or “revenue” in nature.

¶16

In view of the above, we would follow the ratio in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited (supra) and hold that the subsidy was “capital” in nature. Accordingly, the question of law quoted above is answered against the appellant-Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee. The appeal is disposed of, without any order as to costs.

¶17

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶18

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

¶19

FEBRUARY 01, 2018 VKR

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Basti Sugar Mills Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Basti Sugar Mills Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Limited Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S Ram Krishan Associates P.L Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Ram Krishan Associate P.Lt Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Director of Income Tax Interna Vs M/S B.C.C.Fuba India Ltd.

Essfo Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors.

Ess Dee Trading Co. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive New Customs House, & Ors.