Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Section 3 in The Bombay Entertainments Duty Rules, 1958 [Entire Act]
M/S. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax.Andhra ... on 19 September, 1997
“The importance of the judgment of this Court in
Sahney Steel case lies in the fact that it has
discussed and analysed the entire case law and it
has laid down the basic test to the applied in
judging the character of a subsidy. The test is
that the character of the receipt in the hands of
the assessee has to be determined with respect to
the purpose for which the subsidy is given. In
other words, in such cases, one has to apply the
purpose test. The point of time at which the
subsidy is paid is not relevant. The source is
immaterial. The form of subsidy is immaterial.
The main eligibility condition in the Scheme with
which we are concerned in this case is that the
incentive must be utilised for repayment of loans
taken by the assessee to set up new units or for
substantial expansion of existing units. On this
aspect there is no dispute. If the object of the
Subsidy Scheme was to enable the assessee to run
the business more profitably then the receipt is
on revenue account. On the other hand, if the
object of the assistance under the Subsidy Scheme
was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit
or to expand the existing unit then the receipt
of the subsidy was on capital account.
Therefore, it is the object for which the
subsidy/assistance is given which determines the
nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the
mechanism through which the subsidy is given is
18
irrelevant.”
Sahney Steel was distinguished, in para 16 by then
stating that this Court found that the assessee was free
to use the money in its business entirely as it liked.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Madras vs M/S. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd on 16 September, 2008
On the other hand, he
distinguished the judgment in Ponni Sugars (supra)
stating that on the facts of that case, in paragraph 10,
in particular, it was very clearly held that the benefit
of the scheme had to be utilised only for re-payment of
loan. Therefore, it was obviously capital in nature,
and not revenue.
M/S Shree Balaji Alloys vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr on 31 January, 2010
We have no hesitation in holding that the finding of
the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the facts of the
incentive subsidy contained in that case is absolutely
correct. In that once the object of the subsidy was to
industrialize the State and to generate employment in the
State, the fact that the subsidy took a particular form
21
and the fact that it was granted only after commencement
of production would make no difference.
The Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, 1923
West Bengal Finance Act, 2018
The Bombay Entertainments Duty Rules, 1958
1