TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (12) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the hire charges of Rs. 7,224 received by the assessee-company for letting out of the plant and machinery to the contractors were not taxable? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the royalty of Rs. 8,530 received from the contractor was not taxable as it was of capital nature and not revenue? Assessment year 1967-68 : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the hire charges of Rs. 12,195 received by the assessee-company for letting out of the plant and machinery to the contractors were not taxable? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the royalty of Rs. 1,22,902 received from the contractors was not taxable as it was capital nature and not revenue? Assessment year 1968-69 : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the hire charges of Rs. 17,913 received by the assessee-company for letting out of the plant and machinery to the contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and not revenue? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest received amounting to Rs. 7,39,332 by the assessee-company on the amount advanced to Hindustan Steel Ltd. is not taxable?" For the assessment year 1972-73 a consolidated reference was made at the instance of the Revenue as well as the assessee and the following questions were referred (see [1988] 170 ITR 545, 547) : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipts arising from the letting out of the quarters to the outsiders, such as employees of the contractors engaged in the construction of the plant can be treated as the income of the assessee and/or, in any event, should be adjusted against the cost of construction so as to reduce such cost? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipts from the letting out of the properties to outsiders, such as the employees of the contractors engaged in the construction of the plant are to be assessed as income from property under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the said income should be assessed under section 28 of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he dues of the contractors. (3) For the purpose of the construction work, the assessee had given on hire certain plant and machinery to the contractors. Against the letting of plant and machinery the assessee received from the contractors income in the form of hire charges. It was not the business of the assessee-company to let out plant and machinery to others. The assessee-company permitted its use only to its own contractors for the construction work done by the contractors for the assessee-company. The Tribunal has found that the assessee-company charged hire charges for such use of plant and machinery in order to cover the maintenance and wear and tear of the plant and machinery belonging to the assessee. (4) The assessee-company allowed the contractors to use the stones lying on the assessee's land for construction work. The stones lying on the assessee's company's land were the capital assets of the assessee-company. The assessee charged the contractor a certain amount by way of royalty for excavation and use of these stones for construction work. (5) The assessee had, during the assessment year 1971-72, shown in its accounts as income from interest a certain sum said to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee with its contractors pertaining to the work of construction. To facilitate the work of the contractors, the assessee permitted the contractors to use the premises of the assessee for housing its staff and workers engaged in the construction activity of the assessee's plant. This was clearly to facilitate the work of construction. Had this facility not been provided by the assessee, the contractors would have had to make their own arrangements and this would have been reflected in the charges of the contractors for the construction work. Instead, the assessee has provided these facilities. The same is true of the hire charges for plant and machinery which was given by the assessee to the contractors for the assessee's construction work. The receipts in this connection also go to compensate the assessee for the wear and tear on the machinery. The advances which the assessee made to the contractors to facilitate the construction activity of putting together a very large project was as much to ensure that the work of the contractors proceeded without any financial hitch as to help the contractors. The arrangements which were made between the assessee-company and the contractors pert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act". This court also emphasised the fact that the company was not bound to utilise the interest so earned to adjust it against the interest paid on borrowed capital. The company was free to use this income in any manner it liked. However, while interest earned by investing borrowed capital in short-term deposits is an independent source of income not connected with the construction activities or business activities of the assessee, the same cannot be said in the present case where the utilisation of various assets of the company and the payments received for such utilisation are directly linked with the activity of setting up the steel plant of the assessee. These receipts are inextricably linked with the setting up of the capital structure of the assessee-company. They must, therefore, be viewed as capital receipts going to reduce the cost of construction. In the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167, this court examined the question whether interest paid before the commencement of production by a company on amounts borrowed for the ....