9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see for the payment of damages under section 14(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,33,662, received by the assessee from the Textile Commissioner was liable to be assessed as assessee's income ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty of Rs. 7,667 levied on the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that appeal against the levy of interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act was not competent? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport entitlement surrendered by the assessee an amount of Rs. 2,33,662 was received as subsidy from the export promotion fund. The amount was credited in the accounts of the assessee under the head of miscellaneous receipts and it was claimed that it could not be taxed as its income. The ITO did not accept this contention and treated it to be the income of the assessee. The AAC held likewise. The Tribunal, following its decision for the assessment year 1961-62, upheld the addition. The question as to whether the export subsidy received by an assessee is to be treated as income has received consideration of this court in Agra Chain Mfg. Co. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 840, which decision was, however, given in respect of a case relating to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a revenue receipt as it had been received by the assessee in the course of carrying on its business. This case was decided not by resort to s. 28(iv) but on the footing that it was a revenue receipt as it had been earned by the assessee in the course of its business. In Dhrangadhra's case [1977] 106 ITR 473 (Bom), there was a glut of soda ash in the market because of large imports. In order to offset the difficulties of manufacturers of the soda ash in the country a subsidy of Re. 1 per cwt. of soda ash produced and sold was granted by the Govt. of India. An amount of Rs. 2,03,903 was paid to the assessee after a suit had been filed to recover the amount on the basis of the Govt. resolution. The question arose whether the amount was dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of its business and which accrues as a result of the business carried on, is a revenue receipt and not a receipt of a casual nature. Section 28(i) seeks to tax profits and gains of business. The amount in question would not have been paid to the assessee had he not manufactured cloth and yarn and exported it. The labelling of the payment as an export subsidy does not alter its character, for the amount is paid by reference to the amount of goods exported. The payment being directly proportionate to the quantity of goods exported is a revenue receipt, for it is an additional payment received for the goods sold by way of export. Thus, the fact that s. 28(iv) was not on the statute book during the assessment year in question, would not take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
