What is CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers authority for?

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers?

136 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279), spanning 2007 to 2026.

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 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 153A, Section 139(5), Section 147.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279)

M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

…that subsidy issued towards accelerating industrial investments or expansion/setting up of units is to be treated as capital in nature. This issue is squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (400 ITR 279). This Tribunal also in the assessee’s case for the subject AY, has categorically held that IPS is capital in nature. The relevant extract of the Tribunal order is reproduced below: “11.6……………….. It is a settled principle of law by various Courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune, reported in (201…

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…PCIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [416 ITR 591 2019] Cal High Court  CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)  CIT vs- Rasoi Ltd. [(2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.)]  CIT v. Chapalkhar Brothers [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC)  DCIT vs.- Reliance Industries (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum.)(SB)  CIT vs. Birla VXL Lt. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC);  Hydro Carbons & Chemicals vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982- 86/Kol/09)  Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT).  CIT v Gloster Jute mills Ltd ITA no. 766/Kol/2010  Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 333…

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…PCIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [416 ITR 591 2019] Cal High Court  CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)  CIT vs- Rasoi Ltd. [(2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.)]  CIT v. Chapalkhar Brothers [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC)  DCIT vs.- Reliance Industries (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum.)(SB)  CIT vs. Birla VXL Lt. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC);  Hydro Carbons & Chemicals vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982- 86/Kol/09)  Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT).  CIT v Gloster Jute mills Ltd ITA no. 766/Kol/2010  Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 333…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN LIVING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-

ITA 3697/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…tion of the subsidy benefit is in terms of tax payable, would not be conclusive. What is to be examined in each case is the purpose for granting such subsidy. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers reported in 400 ITR 279. It was a case arising out of judgment of this Court in which, the dispute between assessee and the Revenue was with respect to subsidy granted to the multiplex cinema operators in the form of entertainment tax waiver. The subsidy was granted in view of the fact that, industry was highly capital intensive. The Revenue argued that, the subsidy was…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN LIVING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-

ITA 3696/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…tion of the subsidy benefit is in terms of tax payable, would not be conclusive. What is to be examined in each case is the purpose for granting such subsidy. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers reported in 400 ITR 279. It was a case arising out of judgment of this Court in which, the dispute between assessee and the Revenue was with respect to subsidy granted to the multiplex cinema operators in the form of entertainment tax waiver. The subsidy was granted in view of the fact that, industry was highly capital intensive. The Revenue argued that, the subsidy was…

SHYAM METALICS AMD ENERGY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

…in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the 8 Shyam Metalics And Engery Ltd revenue in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. M/s. Chaphalkar Brothers [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178/[2018] 252 Taxman 360/400 ITR 279. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows :— …. 5. Identical issue was also considered by this Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal And Power Ltd. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 93/266 Taxman 237/416 ITR 591 (Cal.) wherein apart from considering the effect of the subsidy, the Court also considered as to whether when a receipt is not…

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

…n 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 determined of application of "purpose test" as has been held in Ponni Sugar (supra). vi…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD

ITA/303/2025HC Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: Hon ’Ble Supreme Court? Iii. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.

Section 260A

…licy, 2004 is in the nature of a capita! receipt going by the “purpose test” in light of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Others v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC); CIT v. Pony Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC); & CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC). 6. Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand, strongly supports, the1"'assessment findings that the impugned subsidy in fact deserves to be treated as, a revenue receipt on “accrual” basis and, therefore, we ought to revive the entire addition of Rs.1,10,90,94,770/-. 7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel takes us to the assessment discussio…