TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Gujarat High Court: Partnership firm subsidy distributed to partners not taxable</h1> <h3>Chimanlal and Sons Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax</h3> Chimanlal and Sons Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2013] 353 ITR 344 Issues:1. Challenge to notice for reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2004-05.2. Validity of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.3. Whether income chargeable to tax had actually escaped assessment.4. Taxability of subsidy received by the petitioner.5. Disclosure of material facts by the petitioner.6. Assessment beyond the permissible period of four years.The High Court of Gujarat heard a case where a partnership firm challenged a notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05. The petitioner had received a subsidy from the government, which was subsequently distributed among the partners instead of being utilized for business purposes. The petitioner contended that the subsidy was a capital receipt and not taxable. The court noted that the reopening was proposed beyond the permissible period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The petitioner argued that there was no concealment of facts and that the subsidy was received almost ten years prior, making it non-taxable during the year under consideration. The court examined whether the Assessing Officer had a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. It was observed that the taxable event did not occur during the relevant assessment year, and changing the treatment of the subsidy for accounting purposes did not warrant taxation in the assessment year 2004-05.The court considered the petitioner's argument that there was no failure to disclose material facts and that the subsidy received was not taxable during the assessment year in question. The petitioner contended that the subsidy, received in 1995, was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. The court noted that the Assessing Officer's belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment lacked validity since the taxable event did not occur during the relevant assessment year. The court held that the Assessing Officer could not collect tax on the subsidy receipt in the assessment year 2004-05 based on the change in accounting treatment by the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed the notice for reopening the assessment, ruling in favor of the petitioner.In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat analyzed the validity of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and the taxability of the subsidy received by the petitioner. The court examined whether income chargeable to tax had actually escaped assessment and assessed the disclosure of material facts by the petitioner. The court also considered the assessment being conducted beyond the permissible period of four years. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the notice for reopening the assessment was invalid, as the taxable event did not occur during the relevant assessment year, and the subsidy was not exigible to tax.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
