Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom.), Sadichha Chitra vs. CIT: 189 ITR 774 (Bom.), CIT v. Rasoi Ltd.

238 ITR 445High Court1999#7774 most cited

What is Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom.), Sadichha Chitra vs. CIT: 189 ITR 774 (Bom.), CIT v. Rasoi Ltd. authority for?

Subsidy received for repayment of loan for setting up/expanding a unit or acquiring a capital asset is capital in nature. The purpose for which the subsidy is given determines its character.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. · 238 ITR 445 · subsidy · capital receipt · revenue receipt · purpose test · incentive scheme · capital asset

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 94section 38section 80hsection 43(1)section 80hhcadditional depreciationsection 80hhtax benefitblock of assetssection 41(1)put to use

Judgments citing Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom.), Sadichha Chitra vs. CIT: 189 ITR 774 (Bom.), CIT v. Rasoi Ltd.

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 720/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 719/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 652/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 1424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3890/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…. Subsidy received under Sampath Incentive Scheme for repayment of loan taken for setting up/expanding an existing unit/acquiring capital asset was held as capital in character by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 445. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. National Co-operative Consumer's Federation Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 599 [2001] has followed the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. (supra). The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Madurantakam Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 388 (Mad.) has also…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No.1774/Kol/2016 A.Y 2006-07 D.C.I.T, Cir-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) I.T.A No.1718/Kol/2016 A.Y 2007-08 A.C.I.T, C.C 4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Ld. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Smt. Shikha Agarwal, Aca, Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shikha Agarwal, ACA, ld.AR
Section 143(3)

…nored the sum towards fixed assets and further development which implies that subsidy is one time grant and not a regular feature for smooth running of business. Moreover, the appellant has placed reliance upon the CIT Vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 445 (Cal.) and CIT vs Panni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held that the character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. In other words, in such cases, the AO has to apply the purpose test. The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is no…

M/S. K Kalpana Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…centive subsidy, we are satisfied that such payment received by the assessee under the scheme was not in the course of a trade but was of capital nature.” 16. Next comes hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Balramapur Chini Mills Ltd. (199) 238 ITR 445 (Cal) holding that the incentive received by the assessee for repayment of loan taken for expansion of plant and machinery (capital asset) was in the nature of a capital receipt. The Revenue’s instant argument also deserves to be not accepted. We are of the view that even if the impugned subsidy assistance is taken as a capital receipt than a rev…

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

…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 Chitra vs. CIT: 189 ITR 774 (Bom.), CIT vs Rasoi Ltd.: 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), CIT vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd.: 238 ITR 445 (Cal.), CIT vs. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.: 263 ITR 388 (Mad), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : 394 ITR 192 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj), CIT vs. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Abhay Cotex Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1423/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul & Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 115JSection 32

…items to be excluded in computing, the book profits for the purpose of section 115JA. While rendering the decision on this issue, the undersigned had 9 M/s. Abhay Cortex Pvt. Ltd. also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd (238 ITR 445), Pratappur Sugar & Industries Ltd vide order dated 03.09.2004 in ITA No.2619/Kol/02 for AY 1999-2000, CIT Vs. Essorope Mills Ltd (139 Taxman 180), ACIT Vs. Nilgiri Tea Estate Ltd. (65 SOT 14), CIT Vs. Gitanjali Mills Ltd. (136 Taxman 21) and ITAT, Mumbai ‘E’ Bench in the case of Pal Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT (IT Appeal No.1310 (Mum,) of 2003,…

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

…No.-6021/Del/2012 (HUF): 237 CTR 21 (P&H), CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. : 386 ITR 154 (P&H), Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom.), Sadichha Chitra vs. CIT: 189 ITR 774 (Bom.), CIT vs Rasoi Ltd.: 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), CIT vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd.: 238 ITR 445 (Cal.), CIT vs. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.: 263 ITR 388 (Mad), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : 394 ITR 192 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj), CIT vs. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…ness operations only after, and conditional upon, the commencement of production, it shall be revenue receipt. 5. In support of the above submission, the assessee referred the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT-vs.- Balrampur Chinni Mills Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 445 (Cal.) (ii) DCIT-vs.- Reliance Industries Ltd. (2004) 88 ITO 273 (Mum.)(SB) (iii) CIT-vs.- Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 87 (SC) (iv) Kalpana Palace-vs.- CIT (2005) 275 ITR 365 (All) (v) ITO-vs.- Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. (2006) 101 TT J 224 (Ahd.) (vi) CIT-vs.-Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1989) 178 ITR 181 (Ker)(FB) 6. The AO h…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d not the form/mode/manner in which the subsidy is received/disbursed. Reliance was placed on the judgments in the case of V.S.S.V. Meenakshi Achi vs. CIT (supra), Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Others v CIT (supra) and CIT v Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. 238 ITR 445 (Cal). It was further stated that Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries (supra) relying on the principles laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (supra) came to the conclusion that since the incentives were given for bringing about addition to necessary infrastructure in processing/dev…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d not the form/mode/manner in which the subsidy is received/disbursed. Reliance was placed on the judgments in the case of V.S.S.V. Meenakshi Achi vs. CIT (supra), Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Others v CIT (supra) and CIT v Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. 238 ITR 445 (Cal). It was further stated that Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries (supra) relying on the principles laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (supra) came to the conclusion that since the incentives were given for bringing about addition to necessary infrastructure in processing/dev…

ACIT, Circle-3, Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metalics Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 956/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…nt of incentive was claimed to be exempt by the assesese being in the nature of capital receipt. Reliance in support of this claim was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Balrampur Chini Mills Limited reported in 238 ITR 445 as well as the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT –vs.- Reliance Industries Limited reported in 84 ITD 273 (Bom.)(SB). It was explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the subsidies in the form of sales tax remission were directly related to expansion of Undertaking, sales, investment of fixed capital and…

Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom.), Sadichha Chitra vs. CIT: 189 ITR 774 (Bom.), CIT v. Rasoi Ltd. (238 ITR 445) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax