9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of Rs. 1,00,06,785 as revenue income (Assessment Year 1997-98). 2. Taxability of Rs. 4.60 crores as revenue receipt (Assessment Year 1997-98). 3. Validity of the revised return and set-off of business loss from the Paper Mill division (Assessment Year 1999-2000). 4. Set-off of short-term capital gains against brought forward loss under section 72 (Assessment Year 1999-2000). I. ITA No. 446/Hyd./01 (Assessment Year 1997-98) The primary issue was whether Rs. 1,00,06,785 received by the assessee from the sale of a boiler to BEL, which was later leased back, should be treated as revenue income. The Assessing Officer (AO) viewed the transaction as fraudulent since the assessee was not the owner of the boiler, having originally leased it from ITC. The AO treated the sum as revenue receipt and disallowed the lease rent payable to BEL. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating the asset did not form part of the block of assets and the transaction was a financial lease, thus the sum could not be taxed as income. Upon review, it was determined that the asset was already on lease from ITC, and the assessee had no legal ownership. The transaction with BEL was deemed a sham, and the assessee benefited by Rs. 1,00,06,785, which was taxable as business income under section 28(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A)'s observation regarding the creation of a second charge on the asset was misplaced as the lease agreement with ITC prohibited it. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,00,06,785 to the assessee's income was restored. II. ITA No. 346/Hyd./04 (Assessment Year 1997-98) The issue was whether Rs. 4.60 crores received by the assessee from APA for the revival of a sick unit should be treated as revenue receipt. The AO considered it revenue income, while the assessee claimed it was a capital receipt for revival purposes. The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, noting the funds were used for revival activities and not for revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the receipt was for reviving a sick unit and not earned in the course of business operations. The amount was intended to help the assessee resuscitate the unit, and the nature of the receipt was capital, not revenue. The funds had to be transferred to Jogighopha, where the unit was located, and the responsibility for revival was on the assessee. Thus, the addition of Rs. 4.60 crores was deleted. III. ITA No. 559/Hyd./2003 (Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The assessee contested the AO's refusal to treat the revised return as valid and not allowing the business loss from the Paper Mill division. The original return showed a profit of Rs. 54.83 lakhs from the textile division, while the loss of Rs. 9.13 crores from the paper division was shown only for 'exhibition' purposes. The revised return included capital gains and the paper division loss, but the AO found it defective and not bona fide, treating it as invalid. The Tribunal concluded that the revised return was valid under section 139(5), but the omission to include the loss and capital gains in the original return was not a bona fide mistake. The loss was not part of the book profit and was shown as recoverable from the Government. The capital gains were also not included inadvertently. Hence, the revised return was rightly treated as invalid, and the claim of loss was denied. The capital gains were to be treated as business income, and corrective action was directed. IV. ITA No. 560/Hyd./2003 (Assessment Year: 1999-2000) The assessee's appeal against not allowing the set-off of short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,00,06,785 against brought forward loss under section 72 was not pressed and dismissed. The Tribunal reiterated that the receipt was business income, and corrective action should be taken as directed. Summary of Results: (a) Departmental appeal in ITA No. 446/Hyd./01 is allowed. (b) Departmental appeal in ITA No. 346/Hyd./04 is dismissed. (c) Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 559/Hyd./03 is dismissed. (d) Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 560/Hyd./03 is dismissed.
|
