CIT v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 422 (SC)
The assessee, a cement manufacturing company, entered into an agreement with a supplier for purchase of additional cement plant. One of the conditions in the agreement was that if the supplier failed to supply the machinery with the stipulated time, the assessee would be compensated at 5% of the price of the respective portion of the machinery without proof of actual loss. The assessee received Rs.8.5 lakhs from the supplier by way of liquidated damages on account of his failure to supply the machinery within the stipulated time. The department assessed the amount of liquidated damages to income-tax. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the amount was a capital receipt and the High Court concurred with this view.
The Apex Court affirmed the decision of the High Court holding that the damages were directly and intimately linked with the procurement of a capital asset i.e. the cement plant, which lead to delay in coming into existence of the profit-making apparatus. It was not a receipt in the course of profit earning process. Therefore, the amount received by the assessee towards compensation for sterilization of the profit earning source, not in the ordinary course of business, is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee.
The assessee, a cement manufacturing company, entered into an agreement with a supplier for purchase of additional cement plant. One of the conditions in the agreement was that if the supplier failed to supply the machinery with the stipulated time, the assessee would be compensated at 5% of the price of the respective portion of the machinery without proof of actual loss. The assessee received Rs.8.5 lakhs from the supplier by way of liquidated damages on account of his failure to supply the machinery within the stipulated time. The department assessed the amount of liquidated damages to income-tax. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the amount was a capital receipt and the High Court concurred with this view.
The Apex Court affirmed the decision of the High Court holding that the damages were directly and intimately linked with the procurement of a capital asset i.e. the cement plant, which lead to delay in coming into existence of the profit-making apparatus. It was not a receipt in the course of profit earning process. Therefore, the amount received by the assessee towards compensation for sterilization of the profit earning source, not in the ordinary course of business, is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee.
No comments:
Post a Comment