1997 (9) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Court rules Andhra Pradesh subsidies to assessee taxable as revenue, not capital.

Sahney Steel And Press Works Limited And Others Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax

The court held that subsidies received by the assessee from the Andhra Pradesh Government were of revenue character and thus taxable. The subsidies were ... Whether the subsidy received by the assessee-company from the Andhra Pradesh Government is taxable as revenue receipt or not - Mere setting up of the industry did not qualify an industrialist for getting any subsidy. The subsidy was given as help not for the setting up of the industry which was already there but as assistance after the industry commenced production - appeals by the Revenue are allowed Issues Involved:1. Whether the subsidy received by the assessee-company from the Andhra Pradesh Government is taxable as revenue receipt or not.2. Whether the amount of Rs. 14,665 received by the assessee from the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the relevant accounting period was liable to be included in the total income assessable for the assessment year 1974-75.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Subsidy as Revenue Receipt:The core issue is whether the subsidy received by the assessee-company from the Andhra Pradesh Government should be treated as a revenue receipt and thus taxable. The Andhra Pradesh Government provided various incentives to new industrial undertakings commencing production after January 1, 1969, with investment capital not exceeding Rs. 5 crores. These incentives included a refund of sales tax on raw materials, machinery, and finished goods, a subsidy on power consumed for production, exemption from payment of water rate, and other concessions.The judgment emphasizes that these incentives were production incentives, available only after the commencement of production and not for setting up the industries. This indicates that the subsidies were operational in nature, aimed at making the business of production and sale of goods more profitable. The court referenced the principle stated by Viscount Simon in Ostime v. Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board, which asserts that subsidies from public funds to assist in carrying on a trade or business are trading receipts.The court also examined similar cases, such as Seaham Harbour Dock Co. v. Crook and Lincolnshire Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Smart, to determine the nature of the subsidy. It concluded that the subsidies in question were operational subsidies, as they were given to assist the assessee in carrying on its business post-commencement of production, and thus should be treated as revenue receipts.2. Inclusion of Rs. 14,665 in Assessable Income:The specific amount of Rs. 14,665 received by the assessee, comprising refunds of sales tax on machinery, raw materials, and finished goods, was initially included in the assessable income by the Income-tax Officer. However, the Tribunal held that this amount was a development subsidy of a capital nature and not taxable under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act.The court rejected the Tribunal's view, stating that the subsidies were not for setting up the industry but were given after the commencement of production to assist the business. The court emphasized that the purpose of the subsidy determines its nature-if it assists in carrying on the business, it is a trading receipt. The court found that the subsidies in question were operational and aimed at making the business profitable, thus should be included in the assessable income as revenue receipts.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal by the assessee, holding that the subsidies received were of revenue character and taxable. The subsidies were not for the creation of new assets but to assist in the business operations post-commencement of production. The appeals by the Revenue were allowed, reinforcing the view that such subsidies are taxable as revenue receipts.