TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor undertaking would not be liable to pay income-tax at all. Application is dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 14-3-2002 - Judge(s) : S. B. SINHA., A. K. SIKRI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S.B. SINHA C.J.-An application for setting aside an order dated November 29, 2001 (CIT v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 241 (Delhi)), has been filed by the respondent-applicant, inter alia, on the ground that Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, was busy in some other court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. By the said order dated November 29, 2001, this court answered the question referred to it for its opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Tribunal disposed of the appeal holding: "The question, therefore, narrows down to the proposition, whether in a case of 100 per cent. Government company where the grants were received to enable the company to function, the amounts received were capital or revenue receipts. The amounts received by the company are not in the nature of receipts which would augment its profit and loss account but they are receipts to enable its function. If the payments had been made by the Government to enable the company either to augment the profit and loss account, they could have been treated as trading receipts or revenue receipts, hence taxable. But this is not the case before us. The amounts had been received and adjusted in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties ought to have been referred for determination of the appropriate committee. If this be the position the assessee should have taken the same stand from the stage of assessment before the Income-tax Officer. However, we are of the opinion that the matter relating to income-tax does not come within the purview of the said scheme. The second submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is that as the company is a 100 per cent. Government company, the amount received from the Central Government would not come within the purview of the definition of income. We do not agree. It is not in dispute that the assessee is liable to pay income-tax. Whether any "income" would come within the purview of taxable income or no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
