M/S.ROADS & BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-I

ITA/376/2010HC KeralaKLHC01027068201006 July 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

This appeal concerns the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee, Roads & Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Limited, is challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The ITAT had upheld the assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I(3), Ernakulam. The core dispute revolves around the taxability of certain amounts received by the assessee. The procedural history indicates that the assessee filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala against the ITAT's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received by the assessee from KSEB was indeed income and not a reimbursement of expenses. The Tribunal reasoned that the agreement between the assessee and KSEB stipulated that any escalation in costs would be borne by KSEB, and the payment made was in discharge of this contractual obligation. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the entire amount received was actually spent on account of escalation. Therefore, the portion of the amount that could not be substantiated as expenditure on escalation was treated as income of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the assessment on this point. The operative direction was to confirm the taxability of the amount not proven to be expended on escalation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received by the assessee from the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) on account of escalation charges is taxable as income, or if it represents reimbursement of expenses incurred by the assessee. (Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the amount received from KSEB was not income but a reimbursement of additional costs incurred by the assessee due to escalation in the price of materials and labour, as per the agreement between the parties. Therefore, it should not be brought to tax. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the amount received was in the nature of income and was rightly brought to tax by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the ITAT. The revenue likely argued that the nature of the receipt was income, irrespective of whether it was for reimbursement of expenses, as it represented an additional inflow of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1940 ITA.No. 376 of 2010 ITA.1013/2008 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT IN ITA :

ROADS & BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

OF KERALA LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, PREETHY BUILDING, M.V. ROAD,

PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025. BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IN RTA : * ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

CIRCLE-I(3), ERNAKULAM. (CORRECTED) * ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN – 682018. * ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 6.7.2018 IN I.A.757/2011. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)

SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALL

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 accountSign 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.

More judgments on Section 2(24)

All 345 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →