B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, S.H.KAPADIA
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras – Appellant
Versus
Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. – Respondent
Judgment
S.H. Kapadia, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. In the above batch of civil appeals, based on the arguments addressed before us, we are mainly concerned with the following two questions, namely :
(i) Whether the incentive subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt not includible in the total income?
(ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest received from the members of the society?
3. At the outset, it may be noted that this batch of civil appeals covers four incentive subsidy Schemes of 1980, 1987, 1988 and 1993. All the four schemes are almost identical. They are different in matter of details.
However, in 1980 and 1987 Schemes there is an additional benefit by way of rebate in respect of payment of excise duty which is not there in the remaining two Schemes of 1988 and 1993.
4. With the above preface, we refer to the facts in the case of Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd (civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12355/06).
5. That matter concerns the 1980 Scheme. The dispute pertains to Assessment Year 1986-87. In this matter both the above questions arises for determination. The incentive
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.