9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Inclusion of Central subsidy in the computation of capital for surtax assessment. 2. Interpretation of rules for computing capital of a company for surtax purposes. 3. Nature of Central subsidy received by the assessee company. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the Commissioner of Income-tax required certain questions of law to be referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the High Court for opinion. The primary issue revolved around the inclusion of a Central subsidy in the computation of capital for surtax assessment for the assessment year 1980-81. The Assessing Officer had initially excluded the subsidy from the capital of the assessee-company, arguing that it was not part of the company's capital as it could be taken back by the Government within five years and did not come from the company's profits. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the subsidy reserve in the company's capital base. During the proceedings, the Department's senior counsel contended that the Central subsidy was akin to a loan as it could be reclaimed by the Government within five years and did not originate from the company's profits. Conversely, the counsel for the assessee argued that the subsidy was received due to the factory's location in a backward area and should be considered part of the capital employed for surtax purposes. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the rules outlined in the Second Schedule to the Act, which specify that the capital of a company includes paid-up share capital, reserves under the Income-tax Act, and "other reserves." The judgment referenced a previous Supreme Court case, CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd., which examined the nature of a subsidy in a different context. The Supreme Court held that a subsidy does not qualify as a payment intended to meet the actual cost of assets. Applying the principles from this case, the High Court concluded that the Central subsidy received by the assessee-company should be treated as part of the "other reserves" and reflected as such in the balance sheet. Therefore, the questions raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax were deemed not referable questions of law, leading to the dismissal of the petition. In essence, the judgment clarified the treatment of Central subsidy in the computation of capital for surtax assessment, emphasizing that the subsidy should be considered as part of the company's reserves based on established legal principles and precedents.
|
