CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…s; for achieving a national objective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the following decisions: • CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orderdated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) vi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding of the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export incentives is de…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

…hieving a national\nobjective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the\nnature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the\nfollowing decisions:\n\n• CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392\n\n• CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC)\naffirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orderdated\n07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC)\n\n• Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) SLP\ndismissed\n\n• DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB)\n\nvi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding\nof the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export\nince…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

…ieving a national\nobjective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the\nnature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the\nfollowing decisions:-\n\n• CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392\n\n• CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC)\naffirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated\n07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC)\n\n• Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) SLP\ndismissed\n\n• DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB)\nvi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding\nof the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export\nincen…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

…achieving a national\nobjective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the\nnature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the\nfollowing decisions:\n• CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392\n•\nCIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC)\naffirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated\n07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC)\n•\nShree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) SLP\ndismissed\n• DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB)\nvi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding\nof the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export\nincentiv…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…s; for achieving a national objective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the following decisions: • CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide orderdated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) vi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding of the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export incentives is de…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

…r achieving a national\nobjective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the\nnature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the\nfollowing decisions:\n• CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392\n• CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC)\naffirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orderdated\n07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC)\n• Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) SLP\ndismissed\n• DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB)\nvi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding\nof the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export\nincentives…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…s; for achieving a national objective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the following decisions: • CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide orderdated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) vi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding of the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export incentives is de…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

…for achieving a national objective/purpose in public interest, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax expounded in the following decisions:-\n• CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392\n• CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orderdated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC)\n• Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) SLP dismissed\n• DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB)\nvi) It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel that the finding of the AO/CIT(A) are erroneous as nature of the export incentives is d…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD.,, MUMBAI CITY

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

…, she relied on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255/333 ITR 335, Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 33 taxmann.com 431/215 Taxman 145 (Mag.)/351 ITR 309. 32. With regard to disallowance made u/s.14, she relied on the findings recorded by lower authorities. 33. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials placed before us. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

…, she relied on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255/333 ITR 335, Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 33 taxmann.com 431/215 Taxman 145 (Mag.)/351 ITR 309. 32. With regard to disallowance made u/s.14, she relied on the findings recorded by lower authorities. 33. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials placed before us. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order…

ACC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…, she relied on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255/333 ITR 335, Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 33 taxmann.com 431/215 Taxman 145 (Mag.)/351 ITR 309. 32. With regard to disallowance made u/s.14, she relied on the findings recorded by lower authorities. 33. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials placed before us. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(4), MUMBAI-400005 vs. M/S. ACC LIMITED, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…, she relied on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255/333 ITR 335, Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 33 taxmann.com 431/215 Taxman 145 (Mag.)/351 ITR 309. 32. With regard to disallowance made u/s.14, she relied on the findings recorded by lower authorities. 33. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials placed before us. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders…

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…ployment opportunities in the Kutch District and not for running the industry for augmenting the profit on day-to-day business. This proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Chaphalkar Brothers, reported in 351 ITR 309, wherein the Hon'ble High Court relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Panni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd has held that if the object of the subsidy was to promote construction of multiplexes, theater complexes then, it would be on capital account. Similarly, views have been taken by the various other High Courts and…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…, she relied on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255/333 ITR 335, Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 33 taxmann.com 431/215 Taxman 145 (Mag.)/351 ITR 309. 32. With regard to disallowance made u/s.14, she relied on the findings recorded by lower authorities. 33. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials placed before us. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

…, she relied on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255/333 ITR 335, Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 33 taxmann.com 431/215 Taxman 145 (Mag.)/351 ITR 309. 32. With regard to disallowance made u/s.14, she relied on the findings recorded by lower authorities. 33. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials placed before us. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders…