9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the financial assistance of Rs. 2,10,085 received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra constitutes a revenue receipt. Summary: Issue 1: Nature of Financial Assistance The primary issue was whether the financial assistance of Rs. 2,10,085 received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra constituted a revenue receipt. The relevant assessment year was 1976-77. Facts and Background: (a) The assessee, a producer of Marathi motion pictures, received financial assistance under a subsidy scheme sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra via Government resolution No. ENT 1075-F dated February 19, 1975, and subsequent resolution dated June 7, 1975. The scheme aimed to promote the production of better Marathi films and encourage Marathi color films over black and white films. (b) The subsidy was released in four instalments based on the completion stages of the new film, "Pandoo Havaldar," produced by the assessee. (c) The Income-tax Officer initially held that the sum constituted a revenue receipt and was taxable. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overturned this decision, considering the subsidy a capital receipt based on Circular No. 142 dated August 1, 1974, which applied to subsidies for industrial units in backward areas. (d) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's decision, treating the subsidy as a revenue receipt, relying on the Supreme Court decision in V. S. S. V. Meenakshi Achi v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 253. Legal Analysis: The High Court examined the nature, content, and objective of the subsidy scheme. Circular No. 541 dated July 25, 1989, issued by the Government of India, was considered relevant, stating that subsidies for regional feature films should not be taxed as revenue receipts. Judgment: (a) The subsidy scheme was intended to encourage the production of new Marathi films in public interest, not to supplement trade receipts or profits. (b) The subsidy was aimed at assisting the assessee in acquiring a capital asset (the film), thus constituting a capital receipt. (c) The subsidy was not meant to recoup revenue expenditure or supplement business income. The High Court referenced several judgments, including CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. [1989] 178 ITR 181 and CIT v. Chitra Kalpa [1989] 177 ITR 540, supporting the view that subsidies aimed at capital investment are capital receipts. The court distinguished the present case from Meenakshi Achi [1966] 60 ITR 253, where the subsidy was for revenue expenditure. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the financial assistance of Rs. 2,10,085 received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra did not constitute a revenue receipt. The question was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
