What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The appeal was admitted, and a question of law was framed regarding whether a sales tax subsidy was a capital or revenue receipt.

The appellant (revenue) sought condonation of delay in re-filing an appeal. The delay was 74 days, and the respondent (assessee) did not oppose the application. The High Court allowed the condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether a sales tax subsidy received as an incentive under a specific scheme was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.

PCIT vs M/S Indo Rama Synthetic (India)… | Delhi High Court 2022

$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 496/2022&CM Nos.51842-43/2022

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-4

..... Appellant Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr Tushar Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel with Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv.

versus

M/S INDO RAMA SYNTHETIC (INDIA) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Samarth Chaudhari and Mr Rohit Jain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

01.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.51843/2022 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 74 days. 2. The prayer made in the application is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed. 4. The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 496/2022

page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:34

CM No.51842/2022 6. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. ITA 496/2022 7. Mr Sunil Agarwal, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the question of law arising in the instant appeal has also arisen in another appeal i.e., ITA No.392/2014. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is admitted. The following question of law is framed: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax subsidy received in the form of incentive pursuant Resolution dated 07.05.1993 issued under the Package Scheme of Incentives Scheme, 1993 was capital receipt and not revenue receipt?”

Learned counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, at least five days before the next date of hearing. 10. Learned counsel for the parties will also file the record of the case placed before the statutory authorities. 12. List the matter on 27.07.2023, at the end of “After Notice Miscellaneous Matters” along with ITA No.392/2014 and connected matters i.e., ITA Nos.392-398/2014, 432/2014 and 443/2022. 13. The Registry will also issue notice to the counsel for the respondents/assessees in the connected appeals. ITA 496/2022

page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:34

14.

A copy of the order passed today will accompany the notice.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

DECEMBER 1, 2022

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 496/2022

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-4 vs. M/S INDO RAMA SYNTHETIC (INDIA) LTD.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments