9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 516 - AT - Income TaxTaxability of receipts of forfeiture of share application money - Nature of receipt Capital or Revenue - CIT(A) held that the forfeiture of share application money capital receipt and not liable to tax - HELD THAT - In the instant case no security deposit or advance received for performance of the contract was forfeited. In fact, the amount received was against issue of shares and issue of shares is not the business of the assessee. The same cannot be treated as receipt in the normal course of the business of the assessee which is engaged in financing and leasing business. Further, the assessee has also not credited the forfeited amount in its profit loss account but in contradistinction to that it has credited the same in capital reserve account. Thus, in our considered opinion the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prism Cement Ltd. 2006 (3) TMI 204 - ITAT BOMBAY-I is more applicable which was rendered by the Tribunal after duly considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd. 1996 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). It is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Taxability of forfeited share application money as capital receipt or revenue receipt. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order of the CIT(A) regarding the tax treatment of forfeited share application money amounting to Rs. 1,23,31,000. The revenue contended that the forfeiture should be treated as a revenue receipt subject to tax. The Assessing Officer initially treated the amount as revenue receipts, citing the inclusive definition of "income" under section 2(24) of the Act. The CIT(A) considered various legal precedents and held that the forfeited amount should be considered as capital in nature, following the principles laid down in previous court decisions. The assessee relied on judgments such as Eklingji Trust v. CIT and Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT to argue that the forfeited amount should be treated as capital receipt due to the initial nature of the share capital money. Additionally, the assessee referred to the decision in Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd v. CIT to support the contention that forfeited amounts should be considered as capital receipts. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee's arguments and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The revenue, on the other hand, relied on the decision in CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. to argue that forfeited share capital should be treated as a revenue receipt. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the case from the cited precedent and found that the forfeited amount in the present case was not related to security deposits or advances for business purposes. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Prism Cement Ltd. v. Jt. CIT and concluded that the forfeited amount should be considered as a capital receipt, in line with the treatment of non-convertible debenture advance amounts. In its final decision, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal emphasized that the forfeited amount, being related to share application money, should be treated as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt subject to taxation.
|
