IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.ARUL MURUGAN, MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3, Salem – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substantial questions raised by appellants. (Para 1 , 5 , 18) |
| 2. nature of receipt in the hands of the appellant. (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. application of purpose test for subsidy classification. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. dominant purpose asserts the capital nature of subsidy. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. decision on appeal and cost orders. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received from the Government under a rehabilitation scheme was a revenue?
(ii) Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal was perverse in law considering that the purposive test was misapplied and Apex Court decision in Ponni Sugars case was held to support the Revenue?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not considering that the purpose test was to be seen in the context of the subsidy granted was to keep the society operational in the interests of the milk growers and not profitability and hence the grant was a capital re

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ponni Sugars & Chemical Limited and others
The purpose of a subsidy determines its classification as a revenue or capital receipt; financial assistance aimed at rehabilitation is a capital receipt.
Point of Law : Amount given by the Government for a specified purpose and the government having control on its expenditure cannot be said to be income accrued to the assessee.
The classification of sales tax incentives under state schemes hinges on the purpose of the subsidy, determining whether they constitute capital or revenue receipts.
The court ruled that replanting subsidies from the Rubber Board are capital receipts and not taxable income, emphasizing public interest over revenue generation.
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.