I.t.t.a v. Ponni Sugars And Chemicals
High Court
02 Dec 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
I.t.t.a v. Ponni Sugars And Chemicals
Date of order
02 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In I.t.t.a v. Ponni Sugars And Chemicals, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.
Decision: Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYAND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
I.T.T.A. No.81 of 2004
JUDGMENT:-(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The only question that arises for consideration before us isas to whether the central subsidy received by the respondentherein must be treated as ‘capital receipt’ or ‘revenue receipt’. This very question was dealt with by us in I.T.T.A.No.6 of 2002.Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals
Limited[[1]], we held that such amount deserves to be treated as‘capital receipt’. The Tribunal, which passed the order underappeal, took the same view.
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall alsostand disposed of.
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY,
J
_______________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
[1](2008) 306 ITR 392
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.
EaseValue