9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Whether the refund of the amount was a voluntary contribution and whether it constituted income in the hands of the assessee. 2. Whether the refunded amount falls within the four corners of section 41(1). 3. Whether the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes applies and assists the assessee's case. Summary: Issue 1: Voluntary Contribution and Nature of Income The court examined whether the refund of Rs. 14,665 was a voluntary contribution unrelated to the business of the assessee and whether it constituted income. The court held that the G.O. Ms. No. 455 was of general application and provided benefits as a matter of right to any eligible industrial unit. The court rejected the contention that the refund was purely voluntary or a windfall, stating that the assessee had a right to the refund, which could be enforced in a court of law. The court also determined that the payments were closely connected with the business carried on by the assessee, as they were dependent on the industry continuing in production. The court concluded that the subsidy was a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt, as it was intended to assist the business of the assessee and was not a return for capital, skill, or labor employed. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 41(1) The court considered whether the refunded amount fell within the scope of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Section 41(1) states that if an assessee has obtained any amount in respect of a previously allowed deduction, it shall be deemed as profits and gains of business. The court held that items Nos. 2 and 3 of the refunded amount, which were claimed as deductions in previous years, fell within the purview of section 41(1). The court rejected the argument that the refund must be as sales tax and that it must come from the sales tax department. The court emphasized that section 41(1) is couched in wide terms and creates a fiction that must be given full effect. The court concluded that items Nos. 2 and 3 constituted gains of business under section 41(1). Issue 3: Applicability of CBDT Circular The court examined whether circular No. 142 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, dated August 1, 1974, applied to the case. The circular stated that subsidies under the 10% Central Outright Grant of Subsidy Scheme for industrial units in selected backward districts were capital receipts. The court held that the circular was specific to the Central Scheme of 1971 and could not be extended by analogy to the State scheme in question. The court noted differences between the Central Scheme and the State scheme and concluded that the circular did not apply to the case at hand. Conclusion: The court answered the reference in favor of the Department, holding that the amount of Rs. 14,665 received by the assessee from the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the relevant accounting period was liable to be included in the total income assessable for the assessment year 1974-75.
|
