400 ITR 279 (SC) (iv) Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT

287 CTR 459Supreme Court of India2016#4176 most cited

What is 400 ITR 279 (SC) (iv) Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT authority for?

Exemptions received under export promotion schemes, like those under the Foreign Trade Policy, are treated as capital receipts and are not subject to tax under normal provisions or MAT (Section 115JB).

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shree Balaji Alloys v CIT · 400 ITR 279 SC · 287 CTR 459 · export promotion scheme · foreign trade policy · capital receipt · income tax · MAT · section 115JB · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 234CSection 10BSection 234BSection 234DSection 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)perquisite valuesection 108convertible foreign exchangeprofit split methodfunctional analysissection 40(a)(ii)section 195(2)actual payment basisinterest u/s 234cinterest under section 234csection 92f

Judgments citing 400 ITR 279 (SC) (iv) Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT

Narayan Industires, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6153/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 253

…TR 218 (SC). 10. We find that the following case, similar issue of subsidy raised for the first time before the Tribunal, was admitted and duly adjudicated by the Tribunal:  Shree Balaji Alloys vs. ITO 127 TTJ 129 (Asr. ITAT)- Confirmed by Supreme Court in 287 CTR 459 (SC)  Indo Java & Co. vs. IAC 30 ITD 161 (Del ITAT)(SB)  Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1539 of 2016 (Del. ITAT)  Tripti Manthol Inds vs. ITO in ITA No. 58 of 2011 (Asr. ITAT) 11. The Government of India in its Foreign Trade Policy 2004 started Special Focus Initiatives with an object to continuously increase our percen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2013-14 The Asstt. Cit Cir. 6, Pune. Appellant Vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto C-10 Abhimanshree Society, Baner Road, Pune-411008 Pan : Aajcs 8944F Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By : Shri R.G. Gawli Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2022 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri R.G. Gawli
Section 32Section 43(1)

…o generate employment in the State, the fact that the subsidy took a particular form and the fact that it was granted only after commencement of production would make no difference. (Emphasis supplied). 8. Even in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & Oss. (2016) 287 CTR 459 (SC) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the object of subsidy is industrialization and eradicating unemployment then the subsidy is capital receipt merely notwithstanding the fact that it is available in installment only after the commencement of production. 9. We also find that Pune Tribunal in ITA No. 1766/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 in the cas…

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 139(5)

…10,08,580/- where under the assessee had offered the excise subsidy of Rs.14,55,88,357/- also. Subsequently, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT, 287 CTR 459, the Excise Subsidy has to be characterized as capital receipt under the “New Industrial Policy and Other Concessions Scheme” dated 14.06.2002 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and therefore, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a letter dated 01.02.2016 and made certain submissions in that respect on 28.11.2016, praying…

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 804/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…o. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 871 & 872/Mum/2018 i) Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 6209/Mum/2013) dated 30.11.2015 ii) CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd [306 ITR 392 (SQ] iii) Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [333 ITR 335 (J&K)] upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court (287 CTR 459) iv) CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [400 ITR 279 (SQ] v) PCIT v. Shyam Steel Industries [303 CTR 628 (Cal)] 40. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts and issue raised by the assessee before him and Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee by giving reasoning and relying on relevant case law. He sup…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…Entertainment Centre (P.) Ltd.: 373 ITR 14 (Del), CIT vs. National Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd.: 254 ITR 599 (Del), Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 198 Taxman 122 (J&K) – Revenue’s appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2011 [287 CTR 459 (SC)], CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd., 178 ITR 181 (Ker. FB) – affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kalpetta Estates Ltd. Vs. CIT : 260 ITR 601, CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal in ITA: 472 of 2010 (P&H), CIT vs. Siya Ram Garg (HUF): 237 CTR 21 (P&H), CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. : 386 ITR 154 (P&H), Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom.), Sadichha Chitr…

Klaus Multiparking System Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeal relating to assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 309/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.308 & 309/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 40

…case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.601/PN/2013 and 215/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, order dated 24.03.2017. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Shree Balaji Alloys (2017) 287 CTR 459 (SC). 14. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The only issue which arises in the present appeal is the treatment of subsidy of ₹ 26,37,000/- received by the assessee from Govt. of Maharashtra…

Klaus Multiparking System Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeal relating to assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 308/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.308 & 309/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 40

…case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.601/PN/2013 and 215/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, order dated 24.03.2017. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Shree Balaji Alloys (2017) 287 CTR 459 (SC). 14. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The only issue which arises in the present appeal is the treatment of subsidy of ₹ 26,37,000/- received by the assessee from Govt. of Maharashtra…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…Entertainment Centre (P.) Ltd.: 373 ITR 14 (Del), CIT vs. National Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd.: 254 ITR 599 (Del), Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 198 Taxman 122 (J&K) – Revenue’s appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2011 [287 CTR 459 (SC)], CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd., 178 ITR 181 (Ker. FB) – affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kalpetta Estates Ltd. Vs. CIT : 260 ITR 601, CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal in ITA: 472 of 2010 (P&H), CIT vs. Siya Ram Garg ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 (HUF): 237 CTR 21 (P&H), CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. : 386 ITR 154 (P&H), Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 30…