Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
FULL BENCH,
CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference to the full bench regarding the taxation of replanting subsidies. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. initial proceedings regarding the classification of subsidy as revenue or capital. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. evaluation of the intent behind the subsidy scheme as public interest. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. examination of judicial reasoning regarding capital versus revenue distinctions. (Para 20 , 23 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. court's final decision on subsidy classification. (Para 30 , 32 , 33) |
1. A Division Bench of this Court referred these cases for the consideration of the Full Bench. Thus these cases come up before us for decision.
I.T.R. No. 217 & 218/1980.
2. The chief question that arises for consideration in these Income Tax References is as to whether replanting subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the replanting subsidy scheme of 1967 by the assessees during the relevant periods of assessment is revenue receipt, taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.
3. A Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malayalam Plantations (1987 (2) KLT 169) found that the subsidy "was paid to swell the profits of th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
