9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of whether a sum received by the assessee as "salami" for a leave and license agreement constitutes a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Analysis: The case involved a reference from the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the taxability of a sum of &8377; 2 lakhs received by the assessee under a leave and license agreement. The Income-tax Officer treated the sum as a revenue receipt, arguing that the agreement was not a long-term lease and was not registered under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, relying on precedents, and held the sum to be a capital receipt. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the reasonableness of the rent and the absence of evidence supporting the revenue nature of the receipt. The legal arguments presented by the parties focused on whether the sum should be considered a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The counsel for the Revenue contended that the sum represented advance rent and should be taxed accordingly. However, the amicus curiae referenced relevant case law, including the Supreme Court decision in Durga Das Khanna, to support the position that the sum was a capital receipt. The court acknowledged the similarity of the present case to past judgments, emphasizing the need for the tax authorities to demonstrate the revenue nature of the sum. Drawing parallels to previous cases like Durga Das Khanna and Purnendu Mullick, the court highlighted the importance of assessing whether the sum received was below market rates to determine if it constituted advance rent. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the Income-tax Officer to establish the revenue nature of the receipt, which was not fulfilled in this case. Consequently, the court concluded that the sum received as "salami" was a capital receipt, aligning with the principles established in prior decisions. While affirming that the sum was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax as revenue, the court directed the Tribunal to consider whether it would be taxable as a capital gain. The judgment emphasized the need for further examination on the taxability aspect, leaving the final determination of tax liability on the capital receipt to be addressed by the Tribunal. The court concurred on the decision, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
