Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
The Income- Tax Act, 1995
Section 28 in The Income- Tax Act, 1995
Section 2(24)(va) in The Income- Tax Act, 1995
Section 10(3)(ii) in The Income- Tax Act, 1995
The Finance Act, 1996

Loading...
User Queries
Allahabad High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Raman Iron Foundry And Steel ... on 18 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2007 291 ITR 434 All
Bench: R Agrawal, P Krishna

JUDGMENT

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for opinion to this court:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,29,328 made on account of cash assistance under Section 28(iv) disregarding the provisions of Section 2(24)(va) along with Section 10(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Board's Circular No. 1690 dated February 11, 1986 ?

2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:

4. The respondent-assessee is a registered firm having business in manufacture and sale of engineering items, like cast iron, sleepers, joints and other railway equipment. It had exported some of their goods in the prior accounting years. During this year, i.e., the accounting year ended on October 27, 1981, it had received cash incentives for making exports amounting to Rs. 3,29,328. In the original return filed by the respondent-assessee, this cash incentive was offered for assessment but in the revised return the respondent-assessee claimed that such cash incentive would not be taxable. The Income-tax Officer, relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT and the decision of this court in the case of Agra Chain Manufacturing Co. v. CIT did not accept the contention of the

respondent-assessee and taxed the amount of cash incentive, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, in further appeal, the Tribunal had deleted the addition and has held that the cash compensatory support received from the Government of India against exports would not be a taxable receipt.

5. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee.

6. In view of the retrospective amendment in Section 28 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1990, with retrospective effect from April 1,1967, under Clause (iiib) the cash assistance received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India is to be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession".

7. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was not right in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,29,328 made on account of cash assistance. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.