VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PCIT, VALSAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality is applicable to the assessee, and therefore, its income is not taxable. Consequently, disallowance of depreciation is not required. The PCIT's order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee received a grant from the Government of India for acquiring capital assets for a Common Effluent Treatment Plant. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest regarding the treatment of this grant and related depreciation.
What were the issues?
Whether the grant received for capital assets is taxable as revenue income, and whether the principle of mutuality applies to the assessee's income from effluent treatment charges.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 28(iv),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 80IA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 20.03.2024, by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Valsad [in short ‘PCIT’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad, has grossly erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case by passing order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 20.03.2024, holding that the assessment order dated 31.03.2022, passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of th
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026