Brakes India Ltd. v. JCIT

44 Taxmann.com 126Reported decision#20868 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 195(2)section 43(1)retrospective amendmentsection 144c(3)section 9(1)(vii)section 40(a)(i)fees for technical servicespermanent establishmentsection 195section 9(1)section 2(24)

Judgments citing Brakes India Ltd. v. JCIT

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…placed on the decision of Pune Tribunal in DCIT V/s Bhagyalakshmi Rolling Mills [IT(SS)No.7 to 10/Pune/2019 dated 06.05.2022]. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Brakes India Ltd. V/s JCIT (44 Taxmann.com 126) to submit that the subsidy is revenue in nature. 7. The relevant facts as noted in assessment order dated 28.03.2016 for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee received subsidy of Rs.40.20 Lacs from Government of Maharashtra which was treated as capital receipts. It was submitted that the assessee setup a metal forging unit in Pune District and…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…placed on the decision of Pune Tribunal in DCIT V/s Bhagyalakshmi Rolling Mills [IT(SS)No.7 to 10/Pune/2019 dated 06.05.2022]. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Brakes India Ltd. V/s JCIT (44 Taxmann.com 126) to submit that the subsidy is revenue in nature. 7. The relevant facts as noted in assessment order dated 28.03.2016 for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee received subsidy of Rs.40.20 Lacs from Government of Maharashtra which was treated as capital receipts. It was submitted that the assessee setup a metal forging unit in Pune District and…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…placed on the decision of Pune Tribunal in DCIT V/s Bhagyalakshmi Rolling Mills [IT(SS)No.7 to 10/Pune/2019 dated 06.05.2022]. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Brakes India Ltd. V/s JCIT (44 Taxmann.com 126) to submit that the subsidy is revenue in nature. 7. The relevant facts as noted in assessment order dated 28.03.2016 for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee received subsidy of Rs.40.20 Lacs from Government of Maharashtra which was treated as capital receipts. It was submitted that the assessee setup a metal forging unit in Pune District and…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…placed on the decision of Pune Tribunal in DCIT V/s Bhagyalakshmi Rolling Mills [IT(SS)No.7 to 10/Pune/2019 dated 06.05.2022]. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Brakes India Ltd. V/s JCIT (44 Taxmann.com 126) to submit that the subsidy is revenue in nature. 7. The relevant facts as noted in assessment order dated 28.03.2016 for AY 2012-13 are that the assessee received subsidy of Rs.40.20 Lacs from Government of Maharashtra which was treated as capital receipts. It was submitted that the assessee setup a metal forging unit in Pune District and…

Brakes India Ltd. v. JCIT (44 Taxmann.com 126) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax