capital receipt

M/s Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (J&K High Court)- The finding of the Tribunal on the first issue that the Excise Duty Refund, Interest Subsidy and Insurance Subsidy were Production Incentives, hence Revenue Receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars cases (supra). The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were Revenue Receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to be.. Full Article

Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT v. United Motors (I) Ltd. (2009-TIOL-693-ITAT-MUM) has held that income from transfer of a leased premises without transferring its own business amounts to extinguishment of the taxpayer's right in the capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income-tax-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Full Article

Where the assessee received some amount as a liability, which was not claimed as deduction or expenses in any of the years, and the same was written off as compensation/ damages for relinquishment of right to sue in court of law, the provisions of section 41(1) or section 68 would not apply to the writing off that liability. Full Article

Until the amendment made by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, the gifts were taxed only on receipt of sum of money; i.e., cash or cheque or bank draft in excess of Rs.50,000 in a year by any individual or HUF. Now, gifts of immovable and certain movable properties will also be subject to tax if these are received without consideration or at inadequate consideration. In section 56(2), clause (vii) has been inserted w.e.f. 1-10-2009. The earlier provision was brought in with a.. Full Article

The assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 in which it claimed that the subsidy received by it from the government was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in view of P.J. Chemicals Ltd 210 ITR 830 (SC). The Petition was allowed by the CIT. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in Sahney Steel and Press Works 228 ITR 253 that the subsidy received by that assessee was a revenue receipt. Pursuant to this judgement, the CIT passed a rectification order u/s 154 by .. Full Article

The Supreme Court (SC) last week set aside the judgement of the division bench of the Madras high court in a case raising the question of the power of the Income Tax authorities to ‘rectify mistakes’ in assessment under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Full Article

We have duly considered the rival contentions and the material on record. The crux of the matter is to determine the true character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee and not the utilization thereof. The utilization will not determine the nature of the receipt. The assessee may mis-utilise the funds but that will not either determine or change the character of the receipt. The foremost thing to be appreciated is that the assessee has taken Full Article

SUMMARY OF CASE LAW Where an amount is received by the assessee towards its income generating assets, then iat is a capital receipt; on the other hand, if the receipt is towards the loss of income and not the source of income, then it is of revenue nature attracting the liability to tax. CASE LAW [...] Full Article