2. Vinod Kumar Jain v. ITO, Jammu, ITAT, Amritsar Bench (Special Bench) (IT Appeal Nos. 65& 68 (Asr.) of

140 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#19172 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2016.

Judgments citing 2. Vinod Kumar Jain v. ITO, Jammu, ITAT, Amritsar Bench (Special Bench) (IT Appeal Nos. 65& 68 (Asr.) of

MAN INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…Ltd.; 306 ITR 392 (SC), held that the subsidy by way of sales tax incentive for expansion of capacity, modernization and improving marketing capacity is receipt on capital account and not income. 15.1 ITAT Special Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs. ITO 140 ITD 1 “Following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the Amritsar Special Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the subsidy by way of excise duty refund is a capital receipt and not income.” 15.2 In the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Bros.351 ITR 309 (Bom): “Following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT…

MAN INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6697/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…Ltd.; 306 ITR 392 (SC), held that the subsidy by way of sales tax incentive for expansion of capacity, modernization and improving marketing capacity is receipt on capital account and not income. 15.1 ITAT Special Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs. ITO 140 ITD 1 “Following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the Amritsar Special Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the subsidy by way of excise duty refund is a capital receipt and not income.” 15.2 In the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Bros.351 ITR 309 (Bom): “Following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT…

MAN INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6696/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…Ltd.; 306 ITR 392 (SC), held that the subsidy by way of sales tax incentive for expansion of capacity, modernization and improving marketing capacity is receipt on capital account and not income. 15.1 ITAT Special Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs. ITO 140 ITD 1 “Following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the Amritsar Special Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the subsidy by way of excise duty refund is a capital receipt and not income.” 15.2 In the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Bros.351 ITR 309 (Bom): “Following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT…

HINDUSTAN PLYWOOD COMPANY (REGD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 145/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: S/Shri Anil Kumar Gupta & Ashu Tandan, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR
Section 139Section 40

…ounting to Rs.3,60,540/-. My aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Md. Serajuddin & Brothers vs. CIT – 210 taxman 84 as well as the following decisions:- (i) Suresh A. Shroff & Co. (Mumb.) – (2013) 140 ITD 1 / 153 TTJ 666; (ii) CIT vs. J.J. Industries – (2013) (Guj.) 216 taxman 162; (iii) S.P. Equipment & Services vs. Asstt.CIT (Jaipur) – (2010) 36 SOT 325; (iv) ITO vs. Jamnadas Muljibhai – 99 TTJ 197 (Rajkot); (v) Deepa Agro Agencies vs. ITO – 154 taxman 80 (Bang. Trib.); (vi) Allen Career Institution vs. Addl. CIT – (2010) 37 DTR 379 (JP)(Trib); (vii…

2. Vinod Kumar Jain v. ITO, Jammu, ITAT, Amritsar Bench (Special Bench) (IT Appeal Nos. 65& 68 (Asr.) of (140 ITD 1) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax