1989 (4) TMI 73 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules replanting subsidy not taxable under Income-tax Act, 1961. Capital gains from rubber trees not taxable.

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.

The court held that the replanting subsidy received from the Rubber Board is not a revenue receipt taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it aims to ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the replanting subsidy received from the Rubber Board is a revenue receipt taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Whether income-tax on capital gains is exigible on the trees comprised in the rubber estate sold.Summary:Issue 1: Taxability of Replanting SubsidyThe primary issue is whether the replanting subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme of 1967 is a revenue receipt taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially held that the subsidy was not agricultural income but taxable as it recouped business expenditure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed, viewing it as a capital receipt not taxable. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal supported this view, stating the subsidy was reimbursement for replanting expenses, thus not taxable.The court examined the subsidy scheme and relevant sections of the Rubber Act, 1947, particularly sections 8 and 9A, which outline the duties and funds of the Rubber Board. The subsidy aimed to promote public interest by encouraging the replanting of high-yielding rubber varieties, thereby enhancing the national asset. The court distinguished this case from the precedent set in V. S. S. V. Meenakshi Achi v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 253 (SC), noting that the subsidy in question was for replanting, not for maintaining plantations or producing rubber.The court referenced several cases to determine the nature of the subsidy, including Seaham Harbour Dock Co. v. Crook [1931] 16 TC 333 and Bengal Textiles Association v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 723, concluding that subsidies for public purposes, like replanting, are not taxable income. The court emphasized that the subsidy was intended to create a new asset (high-yield rubber trees) and not to swell the profits of the assessees.Ultimately, the court held that the replanting subsidy is not a revenue receipt and cannot be included in the computation of the assessee's taxable income, answering the question in the negative and against the Revenue.Issue 2: Capital Gains on Rubber TreesThe court addressed whether income-tax on capital gains is exigible on the trees comprised in the rubber estate sold. Referring to the precedent set in CIT v. Alanickal Co. Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 630 (Ker), the court answered this question in the negative and against the Revenue.Additional References:In Income-tax Reference No. 328 of 1982, the court answered both questions (regarding capital gains and subsidy) in the negative and against the Revenue, consistent with the decisions in ITRs Nos. 217 and 218 of 1980.In Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1984, the question referred was also answered in the negative and against the Revenue, following the same rationale.Conclusion:The court directed the parties to bear their respective costs and forwarded a copy of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.