TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch "D" (in short "the Tribunal") for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy granted by the Central Government to the assessee amounting to Rs.25,000 in the assessment year 1972-73 is receipt of a casual and non-recurring nature as contemplated in section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act and not covered by clause (ii) of the proviso to section 10(3) of the Act and hence the said amount cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee?" The Tribunal held that the receipts are of a casual and non-recurring nature as contemplated under section 10(3) of the Act and not covered by clause (ii) of the proviso to section 10(3) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no effect on the income of the assessee and the tax liability relatable thereto. Though the question referred is a question of law, yet considering the fact that the income of the assessee is not affected in view of the conclusion of disallowance of expenses relating to managerial expenses and rent, the net result is that the assessee's receipts on account of subsidy have been held to be non-taxable, but the claim of expenses to the same extent have been held to be not allowable. That being the position, we feel any answer to the question referred by the Tribunal would be of academic interest. For all these years with which we are concerned similar conclusions have been arrived at. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 191 [FB]. In that view of the matter the Tribunal's view was in order. The reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as the other issue is concerned, it relates to the deletion by the Tribunal of addition of Rs.75,000 received by the assessee as subsidy from the Central Government on capital account. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the receipt was made on March 28, 1972, and did not relate to the assessment year in question. Additionally, the amount was utilised for the purpose of acquisition of a capital asset and the subsidy was earmarked for the purpose. That being the position the Tribunal's view is well founded. The question referred in relation to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
