Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. DCIT

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1056/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., DCIT, CC-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. PAN: AAACG4464B Assessee) : Revenue) I.T.A. No. 1561/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) JCIT, CC-1(4), M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., A-Wing, 2nd Floor, Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Mumb…

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1056/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. PAN: AAACG4464B Vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Assessee) : Revenue) I.T.A. No. 1561/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) JCIT, CC-1(4), Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., A-Wing, 2nd Floor, Aditya Birla…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…new undertaking. However, the assessee has been receiving a subsidy even after years of setting up. In the earlier assessment, the claim of the assessee was not accepted by following the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT (90 ITD 153). Further, the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2006-07 has not been accepted by the revenue and the appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. Consistent with the earlier stand on the issue the claim of the Assessee is rejected, and the sale tax incentive is treated as a revenue receipt. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision Sahney S…

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…new undertaking. However, the assessee has been receiving a subsidy even after years of setting up. In the earlier assessment, the claim of the assessee was not accepted by following the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT (90 ITD 153). Further, the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2006-07 has not been accepted by the revenue and the appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. Consistent with the earlier stand on the issue the claim of the Assessee is rejected, and the sale tax incentive is treated as a revenue receipt. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision Sahney S…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e assessee that the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee by not accepting the contention of the assessee that these are capital receipts. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd., in 90 ITD 153. It was submitted that now this issue has been decided by the Special Bench in the case of Reliance Industries in 88 ITD 273. It was further submitted that the decision of the Special Bench has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in appeal no.1299 of 2008 dated 15.4.2009. Copy of the order of the High Court was also filed. On the other…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e assessee that the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee by not accepting the contention of the assessee that these are capital receipts. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd., in 90 ITD 153. It was submitted that now this issue has been decided by the Special Bench in the case of Reliance Industries in 88 ITD 273. It was further submitted that the decision of the Special Bench has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in appeal no.1299 of 2008 dated 15.4.2009. Copy of the order of the High Court was also filed. On the other…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

…ed to prove that subsidy has been received by it for a specific purpose and quantification has been made in a particular manner as contemplated in the scheme. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd., reported in 90 ITD 153 which held that the liability for sales tax was not reflected in the accounts and no such claim was made by the assessee in the return of income, and in the return of income there was no mention regarding notional sales tax liability, the assessee would not be entitled for treating the said sales tax subsidy as a revenue receipt. He also relied on…