CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

400 ITR 279Supreme Court of India2018#749 most cited

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.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers · subsidy classification · capital receipt · revenue receipt · purpose test for subsidies · Section 2(24)(xviii) · Section 43(1) · additional depreciation

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 139(5)Section 147Section 132Section 139(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 11bsection 2(24)(xviii)convertible foreign exchangesection 2(45)section 32(1)(iia)section 158bb(1)section 43(1)explanation to section 37section 153a(1)(a)additional depreciationbenchmarking analysissection 2(24)

Judgments citing CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5253/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…e same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax and relied on the following decisions: • CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by SC vide order dated 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) 35. The ld AR emphasized that in the context of the very same units which were subsequently demerged to Jindal Poly Films Ltd, AO in AY 2016-17 vide order dated 30.10.2023, accepted that the incentive/subsidy is capit…

Jt.Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Satara vs. Kute Sons Dairys Limited, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 226/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(1)

…submitted that the Hon’ble High Court after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., vs. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., 306 ITR 392 (SC), CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers 400 ITR 279 (SC), CIT vs. Shree Balaji Alloys 7 ITR-OL 50 (SC) and various other decisions has held that if the subsidy's purpose was to help the assessee to run the business more profitably or meet daily business expenses, then it is to be considered as a revenue receipt and thus taxable. Conversely, if the subsidy is aimed at setting up a new unit or ex…

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prism Johnson, Mumbai

In the result, captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5619/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 35ESection 40A(9)

…9/Mum/2024 3 challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of capital receipt drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2018] 400 ITR 279 (SC). It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that on identical set of facts, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the claim of the assessee and directed t…

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prism Johnson, Mumbai

In the result, captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5618/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 35ESection 40A(9)

…9/Mum/2024 3 challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of capital receipt drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2018] 400 ITR 279 (SC). It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that on identical set of facts, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the claim of the assessee and directed t…

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prism Johnson Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5617/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 35ESection 40A(9)

…The assessee challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of capital receipt drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2018] 400 ITR 279 (SC). It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that on identical set of facts, the Tribunal in assessee's own case in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the claim of the assessee and directed t…

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prism Johnson Limited, Mumbai

In the result, captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5614/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 35ESection 40A(9)

…9/Mum/2024 3 challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of capital receipt drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2018] 400 ITR 279 (SC). It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that on identical set of facts, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the claim of the assessee and directed t…

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prism Johnson Limited, Mumbai

In the result, captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5612/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 35ESection 40A(9)

…9/Mum/2024 3 challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of capital receipt drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2018] 400 ITR 279 (SC). It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that on identical set of facts, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the claim of the assessee and directed t…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…cheme is to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand an existing unit than the receipt of the subsidy would be on capital account." (Underlined bold and italics for emphasis) The Supreme Court in its recent decision in CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279) has once again considered the question as to whether subsidy received would be treated as capital or revenue nature and held as under: “The fact that the subsidy kicks in only after the multiplexes start functioning and issue tickets on which entertainment duty is then waived, would not mean that the object of the subsidy is really in the nature…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…cheme is to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand an existing unit than the receipt of the subsidy would be on capital account." (Underlined bold and italics for emphasis) The Supreme Court in its recent decision in CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279) has once again considered the question as to whether subsidy received would be treated as capital or revenue nature and held as under: “The fact that the subsidy kicks in only after the multiplexes start functioning and issue tickets on which entertainment duty is then waived, would not mean that the object of the subsidy is really in the nature…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri K. C Selvamani (DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) IPCA Laboratories Ltd बिधम/ DCIT, Central Circle-5(2) 19th Floor, Air India 48 Kandivli I…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 880/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…submissions of both the parties. From the facts as discussed in the foregoing, it can be safely inferred that the subsidy was granted to the assessee for setting up new unit in the State of Sikkim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279) has held that the subsidies granted under Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment is capital in nature. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows:- "21. What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the "purpose…

Dy.CIT CC -5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2571/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…submissions of both the parties. From the facts as discussed in the foregoing, it can be safely inferred that the subsidy was granted to the assessee for setting up new unit in the State of Sikkim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279) has held that the subsidies granted under Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment is capital in nature. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows:- "21. What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the "purpose…

DCIT- CC5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2569/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…issions of both the parties. From the facts as discussed in the foregoing, it can be safely inferred that the subsidy was granted to the assessee for setting up new unit in the State of Sikkim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279) has held that the subsidies granted under Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment is capital in nature. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows: "21. What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the "purp…

CIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2565/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…submissions of both the parties. From the facts as discussed in the foregoing, it can be safely inferred that the subsidy was granted to the assessee for setting up new unit in the State of Sikkim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279) has held that the subsidies granted under Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment is capital in nature. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows:- "21. What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the "purpose…

DCIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2563/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बनाम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…issions of both the parties. From the facts as discussed in the foregoing, it can be safely inferred that the subsidy was granted to the assessee for setting up new unit in the State of Sikkim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279) has held that the subsidies granted under Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment is capital in nature. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as follows: "21. What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the "purp…

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 320/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y but encourage them to set up a new unit or expand the existing unit for overall economic development of the State. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases, with its lead order in the matter of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279), the Ld. AR contended that, it is now well settled that subsidies granted under the State Industrial Schemes formulated with the object to accelerate industrial development and generate employment, is capital in nature and therefore not liable to income-tax. He further contended that even while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act, these s…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are

ITA 1176/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y but encourage them to set up a new unit or expand the existing unit for overall economic development of the State. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases, with its lead order in the matter of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279), the Ld. AR contended that, it is now well settled that subsidies granted under the State Industrial Schemes formulated with the object to accelerate industrial development and generate employment, is capital in nature and therefore not liable to income-tax. He further contended that even while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act, these s…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1175/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y but encourage them to set up a new unit or expand the existing unit for overall economic development of the State. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases, with its lead order in the matter of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279), the Ld. AR contended that, it is now well settled that subsidies granted under the State Industrial Schemes formulated with the object to accelerate industrial development and generate employment, is capital in nature and therefore not liable to income-tax. He further contended that even while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act, these s…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y but encourage them to set up a new unit or expand the existing unit for overall economic development of the State. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases, with its lead order in the matter of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers (400 ITR 279), the Ld. AR contended that, it is now well settled that subsidies granted under the State Industrial Schemes formulated with the object to accelerate industrial development and generate employment, is capital in nature and therefore not liable to income-tax. He further contended that even while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act, these s…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Mis Indo Rama Textiles Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/395/2014HC Delhi23 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…ITA 392/2014 & connected appeals Page 12 of 23 DHC:4438-DB; CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers, [2018] 400 ITR 279 (SC), are distinguishable on facts. In paragraph 16 of the judgment rendered in Ponni Sugar’s case, the Supreme Court noted that the facts found in Sahney Steel were different. It was noticed that Ponni Sugar, i.e., the appellant, was free to use the money received in its business activity as per its requirements. Likewise, in Chaphalkar Bro…