Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Urvakunj Nicotine Industries
High Court
27 Jun 2002 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Urvakunj Nicotine Industries
Date of order
27 Jun 2002
Assessment year(s)
1984-85
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Urvakunj Nicotine Industries, the High Court (2002) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVersus URVAKUNJ NICOTINE INDUSTRIES -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 182 of 1989
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVersus URVAKUNJ NICOTINE INDUSTRIES -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 182 of 1989 MR DD VYAS for Petitioner No. 1 MR RK PATEL for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date of decision: 27/06/2002
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�In this Reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of assessment year 1984-85:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the amount received as cash compensatory support is not taxable being a
capital receipt?"
2.�We have heard Mr DD Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant- revenue and Mr RK Patel, learned counsel for the respondent - assessee.
3.�The assessee received a sum of Rs.2,87,155/- as cash compensatory support. The amount was treated as revenue receipt and brought to tax by the ITO. That decision was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, held that the amount received as cash compensatory support was a capital receipt and, therefore, not taxable. Hence, this Reference at the instance of the revenue.
4.�At the hearing today, our attention is invited to the provisions of clause (iiib) of Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1990 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1967, which read as under:-
�28. The following income shall be chargeable
to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"-
��(i) to (iiia)�.... �...�......
��(iiib) cash assistance (by whatever name
called) received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of
India;
��(iiic) to (v)�.....�....�.......
5.�In view of the aforesaid retrospective legislative amendment, now there can be no doubt that the amount received by the respondent - assessee as cash compensatory support was required to be treated as revenue receipt and, therefore, taxable under Section 28 (iiib) of the Act.
6.�In view of the above discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
7.�The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.���(M.S. Shah,J)�(K.A. Puj,J)
zgs/-
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.