Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1983 (9) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble in the total income of the company ? The facts are these. The three assessment years under reference are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 of which the relevant previous years are the years ending September 30, 1966, September 30, 1967, and September 30, 1968, respectively. The assessee had 136 unissued equity shares of the face value of Rs. 500 each. By a resolution No. 25/64 dated January 30, 1965, the board of directors of the assessee resolved that the unissued equity shares of the company of Rs. 500 each be thereafter issued at a premium of Rs. 1,000 per share. In pursuance of this resolution of the Board, out of 136 unissued equity shares, 34 shares were allotted during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, 8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2,000 in the third year as the assessee's income under the head " Income from other sources". The assessee came up in appeal before the AAC. The AAC deleted the additions on the ground that the amounts in question could not be treated as revenue receipt. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the AAC, the ITO came in appeal before the Tribunal. In appeal before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the amounts clearly represented revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal for reasons recorded upheld the decision of the AAC and dismissed the departmental appeal. Mr. Wazir Singh, the learned counsel for the Revenue, took us through the records of the case including the orders of the ITO, the AAC and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mely, CIT v. Ukhara Estate Zamindaries (Pvt.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 103 (Cal), Member for the Board of Agricultural Income-tax v. Sindhurani Chaudhurani [1957] 32 ITR 169 (SC), Durga Das Khanna v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 796 (SC), Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 464 (SC), Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1962]44 ITR 362 (SC) and Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Chowdhury, In re [1945] 13 ITR 263 (Cal). Three of the cases, namely, CIT v. Ukhara Estate Zamindaries Pvt. Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 103 (Cal), Member for the Board of Agricultural Income-tax v. Sindhurani Chaudhurani [1957] 32 ITR 169 (SC) and Karanpura Development Co. Ltd.'s case [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC), cited by the counsel, relate to companies which had the objects of a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce for all and is not a recurring payment, hardly satisfies this test. In that case, it was found on facts that the payment of a lump sum which was of non-recurring nature showed that the amount in question had all the characteristics of a capital payment and not revenue. Again in Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo's case [1971] 82 ITR 464, the Supreme Court held that salami is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of the lessor by the lessee to enjoy the benefits granted to him by the lease. The onus is, however, upon the income-tax authorities to show that there exist facts and circumstances which would make payment of what has been called salami, income. In the case before us the finding recorded by the ITO is that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as revenue. Section 78 of the said Act statutorily provides for the application of premium received on issue of shares and it has to be transferred to an account to be called the share premium account. The learned counsel for the Revenue at the Bar tried to make out new case for the Revenue that the amount of premium received by the assessee was a revenue receipt of the assessee's business. We are not inclined to deal with those arguments as the amounts had not been treated even by the ITO as revenue receipts of the company's business. The ITO said that it is a revenue receipt assessable under the head " Income from other sources " in the hands of the assessee-company. Such " income from other sources " was not established before the Trib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates