TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to tax and that the said claim was apparently based on the report dated 30.09.2009 submitted by the statutory auditors of the company, M/s Vinod Singhal & Co., Chartered Accountants who had observed that:- "(iii) The grant received for cane price payment worth Rs. 17,44,85,000 and the same has been treated by the company as revenue grant, but as per our opinion, it should be capital receipt. Hence profit for the year is overstated by Rs. 17,44,85,000." 2.1. The AO vide notice dated 10.11.2011 issued under section 142(1) of the I.T. act, 1961, specifically asked the assessee as under:- "An amount of Rs. 17,44,85,000 is received from Uttar Pradesh Government against payment of farmers in respect of outstanding cane dues. Please justify this grant why not be treated as revenue receipt." 2.2. The assessee vide letter dated 30.11.2011 submitted its explanation as under in this regard:- "Capital receipt of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- During the year, the assessee company received Rs. 17,44,85,000/- from Government of Uttar Pradesh. This is a capital receipt and hence not assessable to tax as per provisions of Income tax Act, 1961. This grant was given by Uttar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO held that the assessee was thus not required to pay trading liability of cane growers and it was thus effective remission of such liability in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO held that for this reason and in accordance with Section 41(1) of the Act, the corresponding amount of liability remitted i.e. Rs. 17,44,85,000/- constituted income of the assessee. 2.7. Thereafter, the AO again noted the fact that disinvestment of shares may be a view or consideration to the owner/State Government who is also the owner of majority stake in the company i.e. to enhance the intrinsic value of the company, but as far as the assessee is concerned, the subject receipt is clearly a revenue receipt. 2.8. In conclusion, the AO further relied upon case laws and held in concluding paras as under:- In the case of Rollationers Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 54 (Delhi), the assessee company was declared sick under the provisions of SICA. 1985 and its debts were restructured in pursuance to scheme and part of its debts were waived by financial institutions. In respect of waiver of cash credit limit, it was claimed by the assessee that the same did not constitute taxable income. Ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Audit Report for the preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y 2008-2009 but despite giving ample opportunity no audit report was furnished. 4.1. The ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the decisions of jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of Ratna Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1958] 33 ITR 644 (All.) and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board vs Otine (1946) 14 ITR (Supp,.) 45 and observed that when subsidy is received from a public fund to assist the assessee to carry on business, the object of subsidy is apparent i.e. to enable the assessee to run business more profitably, become more competitive etc. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that these are operational subsides and not capital subsidies and the source from which the amount is paid is not determinative, as in such cases the subsidy is paid from public fund but the character of the subsidy in the hands of recipient determines whether the subsidy is revenue or capital in nature. 4.2. Further as regards the findings of the AO on the issue of remission of liability in terms of section 41(1) of the Act, it is observed by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee vehemently canvassed the poi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount caused remission of its liability, therefore in his view the AO was correct in its approach while he treated the grant so received as causing cessation or remission of the liability in terms of section 41(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that on either of the two scores whether the grant in aid is revenue receipt or it is causing a remission or cessation of liability in terms of section 41(1) of the Act, the action of the AO in treating grant under consideration as a revenue receipt and should be taxable and accordingly confirmed the addition of Rs. 17,44,85,000/-. 4.4. The relevant extract of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and material as on record. The addition of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- has been made by the A.O. by considering the amount received by the appellant from Govt. of U.P as revenue receipt. The impugned addition was the grant received from the U.P Govt. for payment to farmers in respect of canes due for last 3-4 years. The copy of the letter was produced by the Ld A.R of the receipt of grant and also the statement that substantiated that the grant was used ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On the basis of recommendations of the Labour Wage Enquiry Committee for payment of increased wages to workmen employed in sugar factories, the U. P. Government ordered sugar factories within U.P. to pay wages at enhanced rates. In order to implement this order, the Government paid subsidy to all sugar factories at the rate of nine annas per maund of sugar produced by each factory. It was held that the payment was made in the form of subsidy with the object of compensating the assessee for the loss of profits arising to it from being compelled to pay additional wages to workmen. Payment was for the purposes of the business of the company and not for a separate or distinct purpose. The amount paid to the assessee was a trading receipt and was taxable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the basic principle propounded in Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board vs. Ostine (1946) 14 ITR (Supp.) 45 which reads as under:- "The first proposition is that, subject to the exception hereafter mentioned, payments in the nature of a subsidy from public funds made to an undertaker to assist in carrying on the undertaker's trade or business are trading receipts, are to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and for the said reason also in accordance with section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the corresponding amount of liability remitted i.e. Rs. 17,44,85,000 constitute income of the assessee. In the case of Rollationers Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 339 /TR 54 (Delhi), the assessee company was declared sick under the provisions of SICA, 1985 and its debts were restructured in pursuance to scheme and part of its debts were waived by financial institutions. In respect of waiver of cash credit limit, It was claimed by the assesee that the same did not constitute taxable income. Negating such contention, it was held by Delhi High Court that amounts relating to cash credit limit had irrecoverably gone to coffers of the company and such amounts were debited to profit & loss account and therefore constituted remission in terms of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 even if section 28(iv) is found to be inapplicable. Similar view was taken by Delhi High Court in the case of Ligitronics Private Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 333 /TR 386. Therefore from a perusal of the relevant part of the AO's order as reproduced above, it is borne out that state govt of UP infused the amount in the form of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e receipt, specifically as a remission or cessation of a trading liability. 3. The appellant, facing severe financial crisis, was unable to meet its obligation to pay sugarcane dues to Farmers. The UP Government, which holds 100% shares in the Company came forward, provided a grant of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- to the appellant specifically for clearing these outstanding dues to Farmers. 4. The appellant initially credited this amount to its Profit and Loss account but subsequently deducted it in the Computation of Income, treating it as a capital receipt based on advice of Statutory Auditors of the Company who opined that the Grant in aidis to be treated as a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt. 6. The AO added this amount to the assessee's total income under Section 41(1) of the Act, alleging it to be a remission or cessation of a trading liability which action stood confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, present appeal before this Hon'ble Bench requiring following issue for determination: 7. The issue therefore, which needs determination is : (a)Whether the grant of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- received from the UP government constitutes a reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Company, and to allow the Company to fulfill its legal obligations, in the facts and circumstances of the case is to be held capital in nature. 9. The AO's contention that the grant is a revenue receipt is unsustainable. Relaince is placed to the following Judgements: 9.1 Siemens Pub. Communication Network P. Ltd Vs CIT (2017) 390 ITR 1(S.C) (Page-1-2) "2. The Assessment Years in question are 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The point involved in the present appeals is short and precise. The subvention received by the Assessee-Company from its parent Company in Germany in a situation where the Assessee-Company was making losses has been treated to be a revenue receipt by the Assessing Officer. Though the First Appellate Authority [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)] and the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short) has reversed the said finding, the High Court, by the orders under challenge, has restored the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved the Assessee has filed the present appeals. 3. The question of law that was presented before the High Court, namely, whether subvention was capital or revenue receip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd facilities under a subsidy scheme to enable the assessee to acquire new plant or machinery for expansion of manufacturing capacity or set up new industrial undertaking could constitute capital receipt. In that case, however, the scheme contemplated for refund of sales tax on purchase of machinery and raw materials, subsidy or power consumption and certain other exemptions on utilities consumed. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the assessee for treating such facilities and incentives as capital receipt on the reasoning that such subsidy could only be treated as assistance given for the purpose of carrying on the business of the assessee. [Para 4] So far as assessee's case in this appeal is concerned Rs. 3.60 crores was received as grant-in-aid in the relevant previous year towards salary and provident fund dues. On surface test, receipt under these heads no doubt has the attributes of revenue receipt. But there are two factors which distinguish the character of the grant-in-aid which the assessee wants to be treated as capital receipt. Said sum was not on account of any general subsidy scheme. Secondly, the sum was given by the State to a wholly-owned company w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which also stood dismissed as found reported in PCIT Vs State Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (2019) 102 taxmann.com 221 (SC) (Page-9) Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income - Chargeable as (Grant-in-aid)- Assessment year 2006-07- High Court by impugned order held that where Government gave grant-in-aid to a company wholly-owned by Government, facing acute cash crunch, to keep company floating, even though large part of funds were applied by company for salary and provident funds, grant received was capital receipt - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes In the light of above, it is submitted that the authorities below have erred in treating the grant of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- as a revenue receipt under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the legal position that grant, provided by the shareholder, is a capital receipt and not taxable under Section 41(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that the addition of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- to the assessee's total income be deleted." Written submission filed dated 27.03.2025 (second submission) The impugned order p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in light of this binding precedent. 7. In reply, the Ld. CIT(DR) filed a written submission dated 11.04.2025 as under:- This written submission summarizes the oral arguments advanced by the undersigned during the hearing on 03.04.2025. 2. The sole issue to be decided in this case is whether the grant of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- received from Government of UP through Uttar Pradesh Rajya Chini Nigam Limited (A Government of U.P. Undertaking) for payment to cane farmers in respect of their outstanding dues for some years is taxable income. 3. The AO has noted that originally, the assessee had accounted this grant as revenue receipt in the books of accounts but subsequently, while filing the Return of Income claimed the same as capital receipt on the advice of it's consultant/CA. 4. After detailed discussion in the assessment order, the AO has concluded that the grant received by the assess was to discharge a trading liability i.e. outstanding payments of sugar cane farmers, and thus, was a trading receipt taxable u/s 2(24) r.w.s. 28 of the Act as against a capital receipt as claimed by the assessee. 5. It is only for assumption that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case, the SC held that as subsidies were not granted for production of any new asset and were granted year after year only after setting up of the new industry and commencement of production, such subsidy would be regarded as assistance given for the purpose of carrying on of the business of the assessee and thus, would be taxable in the hands of the assessee company. It held as under: "The subsidies had not been granted for production of, or bringing into existence any new asset. The subsides were granted year after year, only after the setting upon of the new industry and commencement of production. Such a subsidy could only be treated as assistance given for the purpose of carrying on of the business of the assessee. The subsidies were of revenue nature and would have to be taxed accordingly." 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) referred to its earlier decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (supra) and held that nature of the subsidy is to be determined with reference to the purpose for which such subsidy is given (i.e. the 'purpose test). Factors such as the source/form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Allahabad High Court (jurisdictional High Court) examined the issue in the case of H. R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 614 (All), wherein to enable the sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh to start early crushing during the ensuing session, the Central Government allowed to such factories which start crushing earlier, a concession of four annas per maund on cane crushed and on that account the assessee received Rs. 40,419 from the Govt. but still even if the receipt was of a casual nature, the case was held to be not covered by section 4(3)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 10(3) of the Act of 1961), and the receipt was held to be taxable. 11. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (jurisdictional High Court) had also examined the issue in the case of Ratna Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1958] 33 ITR 644 (Allahabad). The Assessee-company carrying on business of manufacturing sugar, received certain amount by way of subsidy from Government of India in order to compensate it for payment of wages to its workmen at enhanced rate in terms of order of State Government. It claimed that said sum of money received by it was not income arising from b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said benefit is revenue receipt and thus taxable. 14. Hon'ble Patna High Court in Jamshedpur Co-operative Stores Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 127 (Pat) held: "That the subsidies were not meant for the growth of any industry. They had no nexus with fixed capital. It was not a capital receipt. The Tribunal had found that the assessee received the payments regularly and the object of the payments was to promote the welfare of employees of certain companies. They were not casual receipts. They were revenue receipts and assessable as such." 15. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ludhiana Central Cooperative Consumers' Stores Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 942 (P&H), has held that the government subsidy received by assessee to meet managerial and rental expenses constituted taxable revenue receipt. 15.1 Thus, it is the character of the receipt that has to be considered. If a subsidy is given to recoup revenue expenditure, it will take the same colour and will be deemed to be a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee. It is the purpose for which it is given which is material and is the determining factor. Since the subsidy was given t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ahney Steel &Press works Ltd. were not applicable. "3. The question of law that was presented before the High Court, namely, whether subvention was capital or revenue receipt, was sought to be answered by the High Court by making a reference to two decisions of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 94 Taxman 368 and CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 87. The view expressed by this Court that unless the grant in-aid received by an Assessee is utilized for acquisition of an asset, the same must be understood to be in the nature of a revenue receipt was held by the High Court to be a principle of law applicable to all situations. The aforesaid view tends to overlook the fact that in both Ponni Sugars& Chemicals Ltd.'s case (supra) and Sahney Steel &Press works Ltd. (supra) the subsidies received were in the nature of grant-in-aid from public funds and not by way of voluntary contribution by the parent Company as in the present cases." 20.1 Firstly, in Siemens case, it was a voluntary contribution by the parent Company in the nature of a subvention received by the Assessee-Company from its parent Company in Germany in a si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Handicrafts & Handlooms Export Corpn. of India Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 488. Reference of this case has been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siemens case. 22.1 This case also is of no assistance to the assessee. The High Court has rendered the decision on different facts. It is relevant to reproduce following paragraph of the decision: "13. In the present case Rs. 25 lakhs was not paid by a third party or by a public authority but by the holding company. It was not on account of any trade or a commercial transaction between the subsidiary and holding company. The holding company was a shareholder and the shares partake of and were in the nature of capital. Share subscription money received in the hands of the respondent-assessee was a capital receipt. The intention and purpose behind the said payment was to secure and protect the capital investment made by STC Ltd. in the respondent. The payment of grant by STC and receipt thereof by the respondent was not during the course of trade or performance of trade, thus, could be categorised or classified as a gift or a capital grant and did not partake of the character of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecause they are made in order to assist in the carrying on of the trade. It held that the payment with which the Court was concerned in that case were different as they were not grants received from the Government on such general grounds. Clearly, the amount in question in the instant case has been received from Government or public funds, therefore, the ratio of Handicrafts & Handlooms Export Corpn. Case would not apply. 23. Therefore, to sum up, none of the three cases relied upon by the Ld. AR do help the case of the assessee as the same have been rendered on different facts. The grants received from Government / public funds under a general scheme, which is the case at hand, has always been treated as revenue receipt as observed even in these three cases relied upon by Ld. AR. 24. In view of the above discussion, it is submitted that the contentions raised by assessee are legally not tenable. It is prayed that the addition of Rs. 17.44 crore being the revenue receipt may kindly be sustained by dismissing the assessee's appeal. 8. In rejoinder, the assessee ld. AR filed a written submission on 15.04.2025 as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT D.R vide Letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by way of voluntary contribution by the parent Company as in the present cases. The above apart, the voluntary payments made by the parent Company to its loss-making Indian company can also be understood to be payments made in order to protect the capital investment of the Assessee Company. If that is so, we will have no hesitation to hold that the payments made to the Assessee Company by the parent Company for Assessment Years in question cannot be held to be revenue receipts." 6. In the case on hand the Ld. AO on Page No.6, Para-8 (though not numbered) of the Assessment order has recorded a finding of fact as under: "The intension of State Government to grant such money to the assessee i.e. disinvestment of shares may be a view or consideration to the owner/State Government who is also the owner of majority stake in the company i.e. to enhance the intrinsic value of the company, but as far as the assessee is concerned, the subject receipt is clearly a revenue receipts......" 7. Ld. CIT(A) too in Page No. 9, Para 5.1 has confirmed the AO's view as under: "As has also observed by the A.O. that the intention of State Government to grant such mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pradesh Sugar Commissioner Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Lucknow, Dated 16th September 2008 Approval of Funds for Payment of Outstanding Cane Price for the Crushing Season 2007-08 by Uttar Pradesh Sugar Corporation Limited I would like to draw your attention to the above-mentioned subject and inform you that the Hon'ble Governor has graciously approved the expenditure of Rs. 246,00,00,000 (Two hundred forty-six crores only) for the payment of the outstanding cane price for the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited's sugar mills for the previous crushing season 2007-08, in view of the disinvestment of the state's shares in the Corporation. The Governor has also authorized you to immediately withdraw this amount from the government fund as per the procedure outlined in Paragraph 209 of Financial Code No. 1 and make it available to Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited for the payment of outstanding cane prices for their sugar mills. The above-mentioned amount will be spent solely for the purpose for which it has been approved. The certificate of utilization for the expenditure will be submitted to the government as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for being allowed to earn higher profits, if the price for sale of sugar be increased as requested. In the alternative, compensation was claimed in the form of a subsidy. It was this latter prayer which was accepted. The Hon'ble High Court found that this payment by the Government of India was thus specifically for the purpose of covering loss of profits of the Company and it was for that very purpose that the subsidy had been demanded. Consequently, this amount was received as a trading receipt and must be held to be income arising from the business of the Company so that it is taxable as such. 14. In the case on hand there is no such finding that the amount received by the appellant was in the nature of subsidy demanded by the appellant and was received to cover the loss of profit. Therefore, reliance placed is misplaced. 15. In Para-12, the revenue has referred and relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Gurdaspur Co-op Sugar Mills Vs DCIT (2009) 122 TTJ 258(Amritsar) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT concluded that in the case before them, admittedly, grant-in-aid was given for the purpose of converting the RDF loan. The RDF loan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R has placed reliance to the Judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ludhiana Central Co-operative Consumers Stores Ltd Vs CIT (1980) 122 ITR 942 (P&H) it was held that where the Government subsidy was received for meeting managerial and rental expenses of the Assessee such receipts was held revenue in nature. In the case on hand grant was received for payment of outstanding amount of sugar cane growers and not against managerial and rental expenses. Therefore, in absence of parity of facts the reliance sought to be placed is misplaced. 19. Vide Para-16, the Ld. CIT DR has placed reliance to the Judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd Vs CIT (1980) 126 ITR 125 (Mad) in which case assessee therein received subsidy to meet staff and rent expenses, such subsidy was held taxable. 20. Vide Para 18 to 24 the Ld. CIT Dr has tried to distinguish the case laws relied upon by the appellant during the course of hearing. None of the point of distinction can take away the force emanating from the ratio laid down in cases relied upon by the appellant. 9. We have heard both the parties and conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Special Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Commissioner Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Lucknow, Dated 16th September 2008 Approval of Funds for Payment of Outstanding Cane Price for the Crushing Season 2007-08 by Uttar Pradesh Sugar Corporation Limited I would like to draw your attention to the above-mentioned subject and inform you that the Hon'ble Governor has graciously approved the expenditure of Rs. 246,00,00,000 (Two hundred forty-six crores only) for the payment of the outstanding cane price for the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited's sugar mills for the previous crushing season 2007-08, in view of the disinvestment of the state's shares in the Corporation. The Governor has also authorized you to immediately withdraw this amount from the government fund as per the procedure outlined in Paragraph 209 of Financial Code No. 1 and make it available to Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited for the payment of outstanding cane prices for their sugar mills. The above-mentioned amount will be spent solely for the purpose for which it has been approved. The certificate of utilization....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 Therefore, we find that the ld. CIT-DR submits that it is the purpose for which the subsidy/assistance is given in the hands of the assessee and not the purpose of the said grant by the Government of Uttar Pradesh that will determine the character of the incentives or the subsidies and its taxability in the hands of the assessee. In this case, on perusal of the letter dated 16.09.2008 of the UP Government as referred above, it is seen that the Hon'ble Governor had approved the expenditure of Rs. 246,00,00,000 (Two hundred forty-six crores only) for the payment of the outstanding cane price for the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited's sugar mills for the previous crushing season 2007-08, in view of the disinvestment of the state's shares in the Corporation. Further, vide this letter, the assessee was also authorized to immediately withdraw this amount from the government fund as per the procedure outlined in Paragraph 209 of Financial Code No. 1 and make it available to Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited for the payment of outstanding cane prices for their sugar mills. Further, vide letter dated 04.11.2011 of the UP State Sugar Development Corpora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein, it was held that where a significant portion of the grant was used to pay salaries and provident funds, which are in the nature of revenue expenses, the grant so stated remained capital. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs State Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 221(SC) and the relevant findings have already been reproduced in the assessee's submission dated 27.03.2025 in para no.6 on pages no.13 and 14 of this order. The question of the Revenue admitted by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the relevant extract of the decision in not holding the grants in aid from the State Government to the assessee company as revenue receipt in para 12 to 14 of the order is reproduced as under:- "Whether the amount of Rs. 4,60,00,000 received in the assessment year 2006-07 by the assessee from the State Government in the form of grant-in-aid ought to be treated as revenue receipt, on the basis of application of funds so received, which was utilized for clearing salary, provident fund dues and flood relief ?" As we find from these authorities, distinction has been made between the broad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee by utilizing the funds for payment of outstanding dues of the cane growers which was a revenue expenditure, but keeping in view the facts and decision in the above cited case, this amount will not be a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee company. 9.8. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and respectfully relying upon the above cited decision, we are of the considered view that the grant of Rs. 17,44,85,000/- to the assessee company is held to be not as a revenue receipt and therefore not taxable. 10. As regards the action of AO in taxing the said amount under section 41 of the act the relevant extract of the assessee submission before the Ld CIT(A) is reproduced under : "The AO has added this amount to the total income of the assessee company u/s 41(1) of the Act treating the same as remission and cessation of the trading liability. Now we quote sec. 41- Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment of any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee (hereinafter referred to as the first mentioned person) and subsequently during any previous year- The first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been paid in full. The assessee company has not obtained any benefit in paying its trading liabilities. Amount provided by shareholder for payment of trading liabilities cannot be termed as remission and cessation of liability." 10.1. The question in the case of assessee as to whether there is any remission or cessation of liability of the assessee amounting to Rs. 17,44,85,000 towards the outstanding dues of the cane growers or not, the answer is categorical 'No' because the grant of Rs. 17,44,85,000 received by the assessee was paid in entirety towards the outstanding arrears of the cane growers as directed in the letter dated 16.07.2008 granting the said amount to the assessee company. In fact, the assessee is only a pass through entity in the given facts of the case which the Government of Uttar Pradesh had granted for the payment of outstanding cane prices of the cane growers. In fact, in this case the government itself decided the object/purpose of the grant Rs. 17,44,85,000 and the mandate for its utilization. The explanation of the assessee company that the amount of Rs. 1744.85 lacs received by the assessee from its shareholder which is state of UP and when a share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¤¹à¥à¤ मà¥à¤à¥‡ यह कहने कानिरà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤¶ कि राजà¥à¤¯à¤ªà¤¾à¤² महोदय उतà¥à¤¤à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¥‡à¤¶ राजà¥à¤¯ चीनी निगम लि० में राजà¥à¤¯ के समसà¥à¤¤ ' शो के विनिवेश के दृषà¥à¤Ÿà¤¿à¤—त निगम कि चीनी मिलों के पिगत पेराई सतà¥à¤° 2007-08 के à¤à¤•à¤…पगनà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤à¥à¤—तान हेतॠरà¥à¥¦ 246,00,00,000/- (दो सौ छियालीस करोड़ रूपठमातà¥à¤°) कि....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-09) के आय वà¥à¤¯à¤¯ की । नà¥à¤¦à¤… संखà¥à¤¯024 के 2852 उदà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤— 08 उपà¤à¥‹à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤¾ उदà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤— 201 चीनी 10 उतà¥à¤¤à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¥‡à¤¶ राजà¥à¤¯ चीनी निगम लिमिटेड की कर निजीकरण/पà¥à¤°à¤¿à¤•à¥à¤°à¤¯ -01, गनà¥à¤¨à¤¾à¤®à¥‚लà¥à¤¯ काà¤à¥à¤—ता 20 सहअक । नà¥à¤¦à¤¾/॥' शद/राजा के नाम डालाजेगà¤à¥¤ यह आदेश पितà¥à¤¤ पिà¤à¤¡à¤¾ के । शासकीय संखà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤ªà¥€ -4-147/दà....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....²à¥‹à¤‚ के विगत पेराई सतà¥à¤° 2007-08 के छकाया गनà¥à¤¨à¤¾ à¤à¥à¤—तान हेतॠरà¥à¥¦ 246,00,00,000/- (दो सौ छियालीस करोड़ रूपठमातà¥à¤°) कि धनराशि के वà¥à¤¯à¤¯ करने की सहरà¥à¤· सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿ पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ करते है तथा आपको पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¥ƒà¤¤ करते है कि कृपया वितà¥à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ हसà¥à¤¤ संखà¥à¤¯à¤¾ -1 के पैरा - 209 में वरà¥à¤£à¤¿à¤¤ पà¥à¤°à¤•à¥à¤°....