2000 (11) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal under section 260A. In our opinion, there are two main points (involving two sums) on which the Department sought to appeal. The first sum is Rs. 2,72,110. This sum represents the part of the insurance cover received by the assessee (the aggregate received being Rs. 74,28,849) which was in excess of the cost of fully damaged machinery. This sum was offered to tax under section 45 by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its hands. The point was whether it could be taxed as a revenue receipt under section 41(2), as it stood at the material time. The said sub-section without the provisos is quoted below: "(2) Where any building, machinery, plant or furniture which is owned by the assessee and which was or has been used for the purposes of business or profession is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uilding. The Supreme Court held that the balance of Rs. 7.03 lakhs approximately was not chargeable under section 41(2), because, according to the Supreme Court it could have no application to a case where the plant or machinery was merely damaged (and not destroyed), and by repairing, the damaged plant or machinery was restored to working condition. Therefore, there is no question of law which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X