M/S MARUTI UDYOG LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

CEAC/3/2001HC DelhiDLHC01003305200104 May 200111 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the grant of Rs. 25 lakhs received by the assessee was not a revenue receipt. The Court examined the Supreme Court's decision in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT, which expounded the test for determining whether a subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt, emphasizing the purpose for which the subsidy is given. The Court noted that while subsidies received to assist in carrying on trade or business are generally trading receipts, subsidies for capital purposes are not taxable. However, the High Court found that the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case, (1983) 140 ITR 532, which held similar grants from STC to recoup losses were not taxable, was not overturned or overruled by the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel or the subsequent case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals. The Court found that the payments from STC were to enable the assessee to recoup losses and meet liabilities, akin to a capital contribution from a holding company to its subsidiary, rather than a general subsidy to assist in trade operations. Therefore, the question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed to the High Court against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order for assessment year 1985-86. The dispute concerns a grant of Rs. 25 lakhs received by the assessee, M/s Handicrafts and Handlooms Export Corporation of India Ltd. (a Government company and subsidiary of State Trading Corporation - STC), from its holding company, STC. The Revenue contended this grant was a revenue receipt and taxable. The ITAT had decided in favour of the assessee, relying on a previous Delhi High Court decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The Revenue argued this earlier decision was implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT. The assessment order itself did not discuss the addition of this grant, but it was raised as an additional ground by the CIT(A) who admitted it. The CIT(A) noted the grant was from the holding company to recoup losses and was in the nature of a capital contribution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a grant of Rs. 25 Lakhs received by the assessee was not a revenue receipt, turning on the characterization of the receipt under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in its own case for earlier years, reported as (1983) 140 ITR 532 (Del.), which held similar grants were not taxable revenue receipts. The assessee argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT did not overrule this earlier precedent. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the Supreme Court's decision in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 7 SCC 764 impliedly overruled the Delhi High Court's earlier decision in the assessee's case. The Revenue argued that the grant was a revenue receipt, citing the principles laid down in Sahney Steel regarding subsidies received to assist in carrying on trade or business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ R-47(Part-II-B)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 3/2001 %

Date of Decision: 5th September, 2013

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Adv.

versus

M/S HANDICRAFTS AND HANDLOOMS EXPORT CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Revenue by this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) which pertains to assessment year 1985-86 submits that grant of Rs. 25 lakhs received by respondent assessee, M/s Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. from its holding company State Trading Corporation of India (STC, for short) constitutes revenue receipt and amount received should be taxed as income. By order dated 29th March, 2001, the appeal was admitted and the following substantial question of law was framed:-

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →