What is CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers authority for?

A subsidy or incentive provided by the government for meeting capital expenditure, to achieve a national objective or public interest, is a capital receipt and thus not liable to income tax. The nature of the subsidy is determined by applying the 'purpose test'.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers?

77 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (351 ITR 309), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 132, Section 139(5).

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (351 ITR 309)

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers in Civil Appeals Nos. 6513-6514 0f 2012, judgement dated 7.12.2017 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the judgment of 42 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 wherein it has been held that the purpose for which the subsidy was given was the relevant factor and if the object of subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up new unit, then the receipt of the subsidy would be on capital account. The Hon’ble Court observed that, once the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the state and to generate em…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 341/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers in Civil Appeals Nos. 6513-6514 0f 2012, judgement dated 7.12.2017 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the judgment of 42 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 wherein it has been held that the purpose for which the subsidy was given was the relevant factor and if the object of subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up new unit, then the receipt of the subsidy would be on capital account. The Hon’ble Court observed that, once the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the state and to generate em…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 220/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers in Civil Appeals Nos. 6513-6514 0f 2012, judgement dated 7.12.2017 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the judgment of 42 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 wherein it has been held that the purpose for which the subsidy was given was the relevant factor and if the object of subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up new unit, then the receipt of the subsidy would be on capital account. The Hon’ble Court observed that, once the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the state and to generate em…

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers in Civil Appeals Nos. 6513-6514 0f 2012, judgement dated 7.12.2017 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the judgment of 42 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 wherein it has been held that the purpose for which the subsidy was given was the relevant factor and if the object of subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up new unit, then the receipt of the subsidy would be on capital account. The Hon’ble Court observed that, once the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the state and to generate em…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…etermines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. ” 143. He submitted that similar principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom). In that case, the subsidy scheme of the State Government provided for an exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly set up, for a period of three years, and thereafter payment of entertainment duty at the rate of 25 per cent for the subsequent two years. In the assessment order it was found that the aforesaid sche…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…etermines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. ” 143. He submitted that similar principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom). In that case, the subsidy scheme of the State Government provided for an exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly set up, for a period of three years, and thereafter payment of entertainment duty at the rate of 25 per cent for the subsequent two years. In the assessment order it was found that the aforesaid sche…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…etermines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. ” 143. He submitted that similar principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom). In that case, the subsidy scheme of the State Government provided for an exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly set up, for a period of three years, and thereafter payment of entertainment duty at the rate of 25 per cent for the subsequent two years. In the assessment order it was found that the aforesaid sche…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…etermines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. ” 143. He submitted that similar principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom). In that case, the subsidy scheme of the State Government provided for an exemption of entertainment duty in Multiplex Theatre Complexes newly set up, for a period of three years, and thereafter payment of entertainment duty at the rate of 25 per cent for the subsequent two years. In the assessment order it was found that the aforesaid sche…

Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Indore vs. M/S Agya Auto Limited, Indore

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 540/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Agya Auto Ltd, The Income Tax Vs. 121 A.B. Road, Vijay Nagar, Officer 1(1), Indore Scheme No.54, Indore (Revenue ) (Respondent) Pan No.Aacca6203C Revenue By Smt. Vinita Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Shri Manoj Gupta & Pankaj Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing 04.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2021 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Agya Auto Ltd, The Income Tax Vs. 121 A.B. Road, Vijay Nagar, Officer 1(1), Indore Scheme No.54, Indore (Revenue ) (Respondent) PAN No.AACCA6203C Revenue by Smt. Vinita Dubey, Sr.DR Respondent by S/Shri Manoj Gupta & Pankaj Shah, CAs Date of Hearing 04.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 09.02.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of revenue pertaining to Asse…

Fortuna Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2218/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Dhananjay Mahajan

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.2218/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Fortuna Engineering Pvt. Ltd., E-109, MIDC, Ambad, Nashik – 422010 PAN : AAACF2767Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. ACIT, Circle – 1, Nashik ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain Revenue by : Shri Dhananjay Mahajan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17-09-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 28-09-2020 आदेश / ORDE…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5722/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Central Circle-22 Room No.465, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan Kamla Mills Compound M.K.Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit,Central Circle-3(3) Vs. M/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Room No.401, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Kamla Mills Compound Mumbai-400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40aSection 43(1)

…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 Ponni 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…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Central Circle-22 Room No.465, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan Kamla Mills Compound M.K.Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit,Central Circle-3(3) Vs. M/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Room No.401, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Kamla Mills Compound Mumbai-400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40aSection 43(1)

…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 Ponni 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik vs. Mss India Private Limited, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1647/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1647/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shashank DeogadkarFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Pathak

Section 143(3)

…expansion of unit. As per the sanction letter assessee has invested ₹ 485.96 lacs in land building plant, machinery and preoperative expenses.” 6. The CIT(A) in turn, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers (2013) 351 ITR 309 (Bom) held that Octroi refund was to be treated as capital in nature. It was further observed that since the subsidy received helped in reducing the actual cost of the asset, hence the same is to be reduced from the cost of asset and the depreciation to be recomputed. In the final analysis, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to disallow de…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M S S India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1909/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

…The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 27-02-2015. The CIT(A) following the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Vs. CIT 364 ITR 88 3 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309 held Octroi refund as capital in nature. 5. The ld. Authorized Representative further submitted that assessee received Octroi refund incentive under Maharashtra Government Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. The scheme is similar to Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Universal…

Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [PAN :BCMPK6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee by : Sh…

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

…r. 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 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 Lt…

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svg Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 704/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: None

Section 2(24)(x)

…CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal 200 Taxman 14 [2011](P&H). iii. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253) iv. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) v. M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. Vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) vi. CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 351 ITR 309 (Bombay High Court) vii. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bombay High Court) After going through the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the ratio of issue in the present case is similar to that of Chaphalkar Brothers wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, has pronounced that the su…

DCIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svg Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 175/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit Circle-4(3)(2) M/S Svg Fashions Ltd. R.No. 649, 6Th Floor, 235, Shree Venkateshwar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Kalabadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aaacd1621K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rahul Bagaria (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner

For Appellant: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Bagaria (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…hat lagged behind in industrial development is to be treated as capital receipt. 8. Ld. A.R. also submitted that similar view was given in following decisions:- DCIT –vs.- Reliance Industries (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum.)(SB); CIT –vs.- Chaphalkar Brothers (2013) 351 ITR 309 (Bom.); CIT –vs.- Birla VXL Ltd. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC); Hydro Carbons & Chemicals –vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982-86/Kol/09 dated 29.04.2011); Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. –vs.- ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT). 9. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have carefully consi…

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

…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 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 Lt…

ACIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nikmo Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4944/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4944/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 10(3)(1) बिधम/ Nikmo Entertainment Ltd. R.No. 212 Aayakar Bhavan, Now Known As Pvr Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, 215 Atrium M.K. Rd Andheri Kurla Rd. Mumbai Mumbai Pin:400020 Pin:400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp4526D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.05.2016, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding Entertainment Duty Collected By The Assessee As Capital Receipt Relying On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Without Appreciating The Fact That The

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…used the record. The contention of the revenue is that the CIT(A) has wrongly treated the entertainment tax collected by the assessee as capital receipt relying upon the decision in the case of the Chaphalkar ITA. No. 4944/M/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Brother (2013) 351 ITR 309 (Bom) whereas the appeal of the said case was pending before the Supreme Court, therefore, in the said circumstances, the entertainment duty collected by the assessee is liable to be treated as revenue receipt and accordingly the finding of the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the assessee ha…

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

What is CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Indore vs. M/S Agya Auto Limited, Indore

Fortuna Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik vs. Mss India Private Limited, Nashik

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M S S India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik

Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

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

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svg Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svg Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

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

ACIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nikmo Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai