Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Direct Taxation

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Case Number

I.T.R. No. 293 of 1979

Judge

Reported in

[2000]246ITR252(Delhi)

Acts

Income Tax Act, 1961

Appellant

Commissioner of Income-tax

Respondent

Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Appellant Advocate

R.C. Pandey and; Premlata Bansal, Advs

Respondent Advocate

Anjali K. Verma, Adv.

Excerpt:


.....fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established......1961, by the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench 'b', new delhi (in short 'the tribunal'), for the assessment year 1972-73 :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the appellate assistant commissioner deleting the addition of rs. 32 lakhs from the total income of the assessed ?'the assessing officer was of the view that a sum of rs. 32 lakhs received by the assessed was a revenue receipt and brought it to tax accordingly. the appellate assistant commissioner did not agree with the aforesaid finding and holding that it was a capital receipt, deleted the addition. the tribunal with reference to the materials placed on record held that the transfer of rs. 32 lakhs from the state trading corporation to the minerals and metals trading corporation is as a part of its share of the minerals and metals trading corporation (the 'assessee'), in the reserve held by the state trading corporation before bifurcation. in other words it upheld the views of the appellate assistant commissioner. the tribunal held that it was not an income, but the share of reserve.3. learned counsel for the revenue submitted.....

Judgment:


Arijit Pasayat , C. J.

1. Heard.

2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question was referred for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the assessment year 1972-73 :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 32 lakhs from the total income of the assessed ?'

The Assessing Officer was of the view that a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs received by the assessed was a revenue receipt and brought it to tax accordingly. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not agree with the aforesaid finding and holding that it was a capital receipt, deleted the addition. The Tribunal with reference to the materials placed on record held that the transfer of Rs. 32 lakhs from the State Trading Corporation to the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation is as a part of its share of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (the 'assessee'), in the reserve held by the State Trading Corporation before bifurcation. In other words it upheld the views of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal held that it was not an income, but the share of reserve.

3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the true nature of the contention was not appreciated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal.

4. We find that the Tribunal after referring to the factual aspects recorded the aforesaid findings of fact that the amount in question cannot be treated as income as it was a share of reserve.

5. We do not find any illegality in the conclusions of the Tribunal and the conclusions being factual, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The factual finding recorded that it was received as a part of the share has not been challenged by the Revenue. That being the position,the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the asses-see and against the Revenue.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //