Freely usable subsidies taxable as revenue income, mining damage payments deductible, machinery sale profits under Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) upheld

The Calcutta HC decided three substantial questions of law in this tax appeal. First, regarding subsidies, the court held that freely usable subsidies are operational subsidies taxable as revenue income, following the Birla Corporation Limited precedent, ruling in favor of the revenue. Second, on lease hold land compensation, the court found payments for mining-related surface damage were revenue expenditure incidental to business operations since no land interest was acquired, ruling for the assessee. Third, concerning machinery sale profits from a closed unit, the court upheld that block asset reduction under Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) was properly applied regardless of accounting treatment, favoring the assessee on depreciation calculations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses substantial questions of law related to operational subsidies, deduction of leasehold land written off, addition on profit from sale of machinery, and treatment of accounting profit from sale of depreciable fixed assets.

Substantial Question of Law No. 1:
The Court found in favor of the revenue, citing a previous judgment. The appeal by the revenue was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order.

Substantial Question of Law No. 2:
The case involved the deduction of compensation paid for damages caused during mining operations. The Court determined that the compensation was a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure, as it was necessary for conducting business operations. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed on this question.

Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 3 & 4:
The respondent reduced the written down value of block assets due to the sale of part of those assets. The Court found that this reduction was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the deduction of the sale proceeds from the written down value. Therefore, the appeals on these questions were also dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the revenue on Substantial Question of Law No. 1, while ruling in favor of the assessee on Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The appeal was partly allowed based on the findings for each substantial question of law.

---