https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38019 The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal as it found that the disputed subsidy receipts were not part of the AAC's consideration and there was insufficient evidence to determine their character as income or capital. The Tribunal emphasized that the department did not raise the inclusion of subsidy income before the AAC, limiting the Tribunal's review scope. The burden of proof regarding the subsidy's character rested with the department, but without clear evidence, the Tribunal could not establish it as income. Consequently, the department failed to prove the subsidy receipts as income, leading to the appeal's dismissal. en-us Wed, 17 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:42:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38019 The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal as it found that the disputed subsidy receipts were not part of the AAC's consideration and there was insufficient evidence to determine their character as income or capital. The Tribunal emphasized that the department did not raise the inclusion of subsidy income before the AAC, limiting the Tribunal's review scope. The burden of proof regarding the subsidy's character rested with the department, but without clear evidence, the Tribunal could not establish it as income. Consequently, the department failed to prove the subsidy receipts as income, leading to the appeal's dismissal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38019