1989 (6) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Business, Business Expenditure, Capital Gains, Depreciation, Disallowance, Expenditure On Guest Houses, Export Incentive Scheme, Gratuity, Guest House, Income, Intercorporate Dividends, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of cash subsidy on controlled cloth.
2. Taxability of benefit received under the Export Incentive Scheme.
3. Relief allowable under sections 80K and 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Treatment of sum received on transfer of import entitlements.
5. Computation of capital employed in new units under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
6. Deduction of amounts spent on maintenance of transit bungalows.
7. Allowability of provision for gratuity liability based on actuarial valuation.
8. Nature of incentive received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Cash Subsidy on Controlled Cloth
The Tribunal held that the cash subsidy on controlled cloth of Rs. 52,87,267 was liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961. This decision is supported by precedents in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 143, Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 448, and Bharat General and Textile Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 747. Thus, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.

2. Taxability of Benefit Received Under the Export Incentive Scheme
The Tribunal held that the benefit of Rs. 14,48,604 received by the assessee-company under the Export Incentive Scheme is taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. This conclusion is also supported by the same precedents as mentioned above, leading to an affirmative answer in favor of the Revenue.

3. Relief Allowable Under Sections 80K and 80M
The Tribunal held that the relief allowable under sections 80K and 80M was not allowable on gross dividend but only after setting off the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation. This decision is backed by CIT v. Bengal Assam Steamship Co. Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 26 and CIT v. North Koshalpur Colliery Co. P. Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 756. Thus, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.

4. Treatment of Sum Received on Transfer of Import Entitlements
The Tribunal initially treated the sum of Rs. 2,07,548 received on transfer of import entitlements as capital gains. However, based on Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 865, this is answered in the negative. The sum received on transfer of import entitlements has to be assessed as revenue profits, favoring the Revenue.

5. Computation of Capital Employed in New Units
The Tribunal held that the income-tax authorities should account for the value of fixed assets acquired during the accounting period and borrowed capital for computing capital employed in new units under section 80J. However, in light of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, this is answered in the negative, favoring the Revenue.

6. Deduction of Amounts Spent on Maintenance of Transit Bungalows
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of amounts spent on maintaining transit bungalows. However, considering CIT v. Parshva Properties Ltd. [1987] 164 ITR 673 and CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 181, it is held that transit bungalows are guest houses. Thus, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction, and the Tribunal's decision is reversed, favoring the Revenue.

7. Allowability of Provision for Gratuity Liability
The Tribunal upheld the allowance of the provision for gratuity liability made on actuarial valuation, based on Eastern Spinning Mills Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 686. Thus, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

8. Nature of Incentive Received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh
The Tribunal held that the incentive of Rs. 13,02,782 received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a revenue receipt liable to tax. This conclusion is supported by Panyam Cements and Mineral Industries Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 770 and CIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1985] 152 ITR 39. The incentive is incidental to the business and not a capital receipt. Thus, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
All questions referred to the court have been answered in favor of the Revenue except for the provision for gratuity liability, which was answered in favor of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →