9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of "hank yarn obligation premium" as capital or revenue receipt. 2. Disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Treatment of initial depreciation allowed in earlier assessment years. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of "hank yarn obligation premium" as Capital or Revenue Receipt: The primary issue was whether the "hank yarn obligation premium" received by the assessee is chargeable to tax as a capital or revenue receipt. The context involved the Government's regulation of cotton textile production patterns, specifically through Notification No. CER/17/79, which required yarn producers to pack a certain percentage of yarn in hank form. The Indian Cotton Mills Federation formulated a scheme allowing mills to transfer their hank yarn obligations to other mills for a monetary consideration. The assessee, a transferee of such obligations, received premiums for fulfilling these obligations. Initially, the assessee treated these premiums as revenue receipts but later claimed them as capital receipts. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) treated the premiums as revenue receipts, citing section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act and the nature of the receipts arising in the course of business. The Tribunal, upon examining the principles and relevant case law, concluded that the premiums received filled a hole in the assessee's profits caused by the transferred obligations, making them revenue receipts. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's observations in K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT and Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that each case depends on its facts and that the nature of the transaction should be examined on first principles. The Tribunal affirmed that the premiums were taxable as revenue receipts. 2. Disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act: For the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 14,112 under section 37(3A), considering car maintenance expenses of Rs. 1,41,205. The assessee argued that expenses covered by section 31 (insurance premia and repair expenses) should not be included under section 37(3A). The CIT (Appeals) agreed and directed the exclusion of these items, a decision supported by the Tribunal, referencing the Bombay case of CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1). 3. Treatment of Initial Depreciation Allowed in Earlier Assessment Years: The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 59,84,739 without reducing the written down value (WDV) of labor quarters by the initial depreciation allowed in previous years. The Assessing Officer adjusted the WDV accordingly, but the CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim, stating that the initial depreciation should not affect the WDV calculation. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) did not provide a detailed rationale and remitted the issue back for fresh consideration, particularly in light of the amendment to section 32(1)(iv) by the Finance Act, 1983. Conclusion: - The appeals by the assessee were dismissed, affirming that the hank yarn obligation premiums are revenue receipts. - The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision on the disallowance under section 37(3A). - The issue of initial depreciation treatment was remitted for fresh consideration by the first appellate authority. Order: - Assessee's appeals dismissed. - Departmental appeal treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
