The tribunal held that central subsidy is a capital receipt following Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
I.T.T.A. No.81 of 2004
JUDGMENT:- (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The only question that arises for consideration before us is as to whether the central subsidy received by the respondent herein must be treated as ‘capital receipt’ or ‘revenue receipt’. This very question was dealt with by us in I.T.T.A.No.6 of 2002. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited[1] , we held that such amount deserves to be treated as ‘capital receipt’. The Tribunal, which passed the order under appeal, took the same view.
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
_______________________
Date:02.12.2014 kdl
[1] (2008) 306 ITR 392
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the central subsidy received by the respondent must be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals LimitedFollowed¶7
(2008) 306 ITR 392
The Appellant
The Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
