Skip to main content

Purpose of grant is to be seen to ascertain it as a capital or revenue receipt

In CIT v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that the subsidy allowed by the State Government on account of power consumption to new or expanding industrial units was a capital receipt.

The subsidy as referred to above was granted to business units and the question was whether such subsidy is to be regarded as capital receipt or revenue receipt. The instant appeal was filed at the instance of Income Tax Department. There was a difference of opinion between judicial member and accountant member of the Appellate Authority.

In order to decide the question, the High Court referred to a few Supreme Court decisions and held that the purpose of grant of subsidy would be the overwhelming consideration in ascertaining whether the subsidy is to be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt. A wider interpretation was given to the purpose test and it was held that since the subsidy was provided in lieu of certain other subsidies on account of capital expenditure, the real purpose of the scheme was augmenting capital resources by a new or expanding unit. The difference may be in degrees but the real purpose of the scheme has to be discerned. Accordingly, the Court held that the subsidy as provided in the instant case was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/05/23/purpose-of-grant-is-to-be-seen-to-ascertain-it-as-a-capital-or-revenue-receipt/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more