9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the amount received by the assessee is a business receipt u/s 10(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary: The case involved an assessee-firm engaged in manufacturing tea-chest fittings and battery covers, which imported tin sheets for tea-chest production. A portion of the tin sheets arrived rusty, making them unusable. The insurer compensated the assessee for the damaged goods, resulting in an excess amount due to devaluation of the Indian rupee. The question was whether this excess amount of Rs. 13,455.75 constituted a casual and non-recurring receipt within the scope of section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the excess amount as part of the business receipts, but the Appellate Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal opined that the excess amount was not a business receipt as the transaction was completed post-devaluation. Both parties agreed it was not capital gains. The Tribunal referenced section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, which excludes casual and non-recurring receipts unless they are capital gains or business receipts. The department argued that the excess amount was a trading profit and should be included in the total income. They cited previous court decisions to support their stance. However, the court differentiated the present case from previous judgments. It highlighted that the excess amount was compensation for damaged goods, not a sale consideration or part of foreign exchange dealings. The excess profit was deemed a windfall due to devaluation, not a business receipt. Therefore, it was concluded that the sum of Rs. 13,455.75 was not a business receipt u/s 10(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the excess amount was not a business receipt as per the relevant section of the Income-tax Act. The question was answered in the negative, supporting the assessee's position.
|
