Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1999 (2) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Income-tax has required under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 196 1, the following questions of law, relating to the assessment year 1980-81, to be referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the "Tribunal"), to this court for opinion : " 1. The amount of subsidy is not part and parcel of the owned capital of the assessee. Since the amount of subsidy is not owned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"). While computing the capital of the assessee-company for the purpose of allowing statutory deduction from the chargeable profits, the Assessing Officer did not include the Central subsidy amounting to Rs. 3,20,100 on the plea that the amount of subsidy received by the assessee-company from the Government was not in the nature of a reserve created out of profits ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pany received subsidy from the Government because of location of its factory in a backward area. The assessee-company claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount of subsidy is includible in the capital employed in the industrial undertaking for the purpose of surtax. The Assessing Officer wrongly rejected the claim. The amount of Central subsidy was not a liability as it was received as a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t subsidy, it is not unreasonable to say, is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, though quantified as or geared to a percentage of such cost. If that be so, it does not partake of the character of a payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the 'actual cost"'. In the light of the ratio in the case of CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. [1....