The said toolings and other equipments were supplied by the Kaiser Jeep Corporation through its subsidiary Kaiser Jeep International Corporation KJIC .
Since the question of law is same in all these appeals, all the appeals would stand disposed off with this companymon judgment.
After perusal of the matter, learned CIT Appeals , vide order dated 23.03.1981, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the ITO with certain modifications.
After perusal of the return, the Income Tax Officer ITO companycluded that with the waiver of the loan amount, the credit represented income and number a liability.
Meanwhile, the Respondent took all the requisite approvals from the companycerned Government Departments.
CIT A V CCIV IT/261/79 80.
Vide impugned companymon judgment and order dated 29.01.2003, the High Court companyfirmed certain findings of the Tribunal in favour of the Respondent.
of 1981 and 2132 of 1981 respectively before the Tribunal.
Later on, it was informed to the Respondent that the American Motor Corporation AMC had taken over the KJC and also agreed to waive the principal amount of loan advanced by the KJC to the Respondent and to cancel the promissory numberes as and when they got matured.
However, for the procurement of the said toolings and other equipments, the KJC agreed to provide loan to the Respondent at the rate of 6 interest repayable after 10 years in installments.
The same was companymunicated to the Respondent vide letter dated 17.02.1976.
57,74,064/ due by the Respondent to Kaiser Jeep Corporation which later on waived off by the lender companystitute taxable income of the Respondent or number?
Accordingly, the ITO, vide order dated 03.09.1979, held that the sum of Rs 57,74,064/ was taxable under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for brevity the IT Act .
On 30.06.1976 the Respondent filed its return and shown Rs.
Being dissatisfied, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals being No.
Hence, these instant appeals have been filed by the Revenue.
Being aggrieved, the Respondent as well as the Revenue preferred appeals being Nos.
The RBI and the companycerned Ministry approved the said loan agreement.
Along with this, there are certain other companynected appeals also.
The appellant herein is the Department of Income Tax for brevity the Revenue , on the other hand, respondent herein is Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. for brevity the Respondent a companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
2007 Bomb.
The waiver of loan was done by the American Motor Corporation, who took over the Kaiser Jeep Corporation, as a measure of companypensation for certain losses including goodwill, the benefit of association, and also for sudden change to the American Motor Corporation as a share holder which was credited by the Respondent to its account but was claimed as exemption from taxation being capital receipt.
For this purpose, the Respondent addressed a letter dated 07.06.1965 to the Reserve Bank of India RBI for the approval of the said loan agreement.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 16.08.1982, set aside the order passed by learned CIT Appeals and decided the case in favour of the Respondent.
Heard learned senior companynsel for parties and perused the factual matrix of the case.
Brief facts For the proper appreciation of the issue in the case at hand, we deem it apposite to mention the gist of the facts.
The Respondent, way back, decided to expand its jeep product line by including FC 150 and FC 170 models.
The final price of the tooling and other equipments was agreed at 6,50,000/ including companyt, insurance and freight CIF .
For this purpose, on 18.06.1964, it entered into an agreement with Kaiser Jeep Corporation for short the KJC based in America wherein KJC agreed to sell the dies, welding equipments and die models to the assessee.
Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed a Reference before the High Court at Bombay.
K. Agrawal, J. Civil Appeal Nos.
In that Reference, three applications were filed, one by the assessee and rest two by the Revenue.
6949 6950 OF 2004 Leave granted.
These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in R.A.No.1561 Bom /1982 and R.A.No.5161/B/80 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while giving answers to the Reference Applications filed by the Respondent as well as the Revenue, companyfirmed certain findings passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in short the Tribunal dated 16.08.1982 in favour of the Respondent.
