9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether subsidy received for rejuvenation of tea plantation is of revenue or capital nature for income tax assessment. Analysis: The High Court of Kerala was presented with an application by the Revenue to refer a legal question arising from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The case revolved around the assessment of an amount received as subsidy for tea plantation rejuvenation. The Assessing Officer categorized the subsidy as revenue, while the Tribunal overturned this decision based on a precedent involving rubber replantation subsidy. The Court noted that the purpose of the tea plantation rejuvenation scheme was to enhance productivity by improving old and uneconomic areas, not to increase profits. Drawing parallels with the earlier decision, the Court concluded that the subsidy was not a revenue receipt under the Income-tax Act. The Department argued that all receipts, including those of capital nature, should be treated as income, citing a Supreme Court decision and section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the subsidy in question was not revenue in nature based on the scheme's objective and conditions. The Court dismissed the argument that the amendment introducing exemption for rejuvenation subsidy from 1985 implied its prior treatment as revenue. Ultimately, the Court found no legal question necessitating referral, especially in light of the precedent established in the Ruby Rubber Works case. In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the Revenue's application, affirming that the subsidy received for tea plantation rejuvenation was not of revenue nature but rather aimed at improving productivity and thus not taxable under the Income-tax Act.
|
