CIT v. Chitra Kalpa

177 ITR 540Reported decision#23182 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Chitra Kalpa

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. The ACIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. ACIT (NFAC) Plot No.A-43, Phase-II, Delhi MIDC Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCB 2304 E Assessee by Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 28.02.20…

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Medha Servo Drives Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Sadichha Chitra ( supra), proceeded on the footing that subsidies were granted as and when the film was being completed which resulted in creation of a capital asset. A similar view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Chitra Kalpa 177 ITR 540 where it was held that subsidy was for making a film and was to be treated as a capital receipt because the film was a capital asset in the hands of the producer. The view taken by the Bombay and the Kerala High Courts appears to be correct and accords with the principle laid down in Seaham Harbour Dock Co. 's case (supra) that assistance given b…

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Medha Servo Drives Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Sadichha Chitra ( supra), proceeded on the footing that subsidies were granted as and when the film was being completed which resulted in creation of a capital asset. A similar view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Chitra Kalpa 177 ITR 540 where it was held that subsidy was for making a film and was to be treated as a capital receipt because the film was a capital asset in the hands of the producer. The view taken by the Bombay and the Kerala High Courts appears to be correct and accords with the principle laid down in Seaham Harbour Dock Co. 's case (supra) that assistance given b…

CIT v. Chitra Kalpa (177 ITR 540) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax