Supreme CourtFull Bench(2001) 08 SC CK 0121

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajaram Maize Products

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 23 August 2001 · Citation: AIR 2002 SC 490 : (2002) AIRSCW 21 : (2001) 170 CTR 393 : (2001) 251 ITR 427 : (2002) 9 SCC 713 : (2001) 119 TAXMAN 492

HON’BLE JUDGES
Y. K. Sabharwal, J · S. P. Bharucha, J · Ashok Bhan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No: 2006 of 1998, 2004, 2005, 3462, 3560 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 191 words
1.

Leave granted in the special leave petition.

2.

The question that requires our consideration reads thus (see Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajaram Maize Products, :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the power subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt, not liable to be taxed within the meaning of section 28(iv) of the income tax Act. 1961 ?"

3.

This court in M/s. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. etc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad, , has held that power subsidies are of revenue nature and have to be taxed accordingly. We also find that the terms under which the subsidy was given in the present cases clearly suggest that the subsidy was of a revenue nature inasmuch as it went towards reduction of the electricity bills.

4.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The orders under challenge are set aside in so far as they relate to the question quoted above. That question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.

5.

No order as to costs.