9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner 2. Treatment of amount received for destruction of bottles as revenue or capital receipt Analysis: *Issue 1: Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner* The High Court analyzed the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner in light of the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. The court noted that revisional jurisdiction is permissible when an appeal has been preferred on matters not subject to appeal. In this case, the question of treating the amount received for the destruction of bottles as a capital or revenue receipt was not part of the appeal. Therefore, the Commissioner was within his powers to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal's view that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction was deemed untenable, and the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on this issue. *Issue 2: Treatment of amount received for destruction of bottles* Regarding whether the amount received for the destruction of bottles should be considered a revenue or capital receipt, the High Court disagreed with both the Tribunal and the Commissioner. Citing a previous case involving the same assessee, the court established that each bottle used for bottling soft drinks constituted a capital asset. As such, the monies received for the destruction of the bottles from Coca-Cola were deemed a capital receipt. Consequently, the first question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The court considered the second question, regarding the compensation received being deemed profits, as academic in light of the capital receipt determination. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner and ruled that the amount received for the destruction of bottles should be treated as a capital receipt due to the bottles being considered capital assets.
|
