How many judgments cite CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (364 ITR 88), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 194C, Section 2(24), Section 2(24)(xviii).

CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.

364 ITR 88High Court2014#2199 most cited

What is CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. authority for?

A subsidy's character as a capital or revenue receipt depends on its purpose; subsidies received for setting up a new unit or expanding an existing one qualify as capital receipts and are not taxable.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. · subsidy · capital receipt · revenue receipt · purpose test · industrial promotion subsidy · electricity duty exemption · taxability of subsidies · character of receipt · new unit subsidy

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 96

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194C Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 234B Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

bright line test amp expenditure section 75 section 92(1)comparable uncontrolled price method cost plus method section 80e functional analysis section 80jja section 80jjaa section 33b section 92f

Judgments citing CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 4Th Floor, Central Buidling Road, Mumbai-400020. No.3, Master Boman Lane, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd4304P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai Dated 04.10.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Sole Issue Is Regarding The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao To The Tune Of Rs.5,58,52,480/- Which Assessee Claimed To Be Incentive In Nature Of Capital [Mega Project Incentive In The Form Of Sales Tax Incentive Etc.)] Whereas According To The Ao It Was Revenue In Nature. Therefore, Deduction Claimed By Assessee Was Not Allowed By The Ao. & Thereafter He Also Made Adjustment Of Book Profit Made By The Ao U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Disallowed The Same & Thus Assessed The Book Profit At 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,06,95,298/-. Against The Action Of The Ao, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Was Pleased To Delete The Same. Aggrieved, By The Aforesaid Action Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Revenue Is Before Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 115Section 115J

…d that the test is that the character of the receipt in the 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd. hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy was granted. Likewise, in the case of CIT v/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines 364 ITR 88 (Bom.) the said two decisions, namely, M/s. Sahney Steel and M/s. Press Works (supra) and M/s. Ponni Sugara and Chemicals (supra) have been discussed and commented that the Supreme Court had emphasized that the character of receipt in the hands of the assessee had to be determined with respect to purpose for which subsidy was given. If object of s…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 41Section 80

…come u/s 80 IB of the income tax act does not arise. To support case of the assessee, he relied on decision of the coordinate bench in case of Bushan steel Ltd 63 taxmann.com 96 (2015), Chaphalkar Bros (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC), Kirloskar oil engines Ltd (2014) 364 ITR 88 (Bom) and Mapco industries Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 208 (SC). 014. The learned departmental representative stated that the above issue was not before the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT – Al and therefore it should go back to the learned assessing officer for examination of the claim of the assessee with respect to the exemption/non-charge…

The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5840/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 115JSection 14A

…entives mainly The Supreme Industries Ltd annual refund comprising of VAT and Central Sales Tax (CST) and electricity duty exemption. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on the following decisions; “1. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd [2015], 55 Taxmann.com 96 (Bombay)” 2. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune, [2017], 88 taxmann.com 178(SC). 3. LG Electronics India (P) Ltd, [2017], Delhi Trib 2.7 On the other hand, the LD DR has relied on the order of the lower authorities. 2.8 We heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee received…

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7261/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 115JSection 14A

DCIT, Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4754/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 115JSection 14A

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

ITA/516/2016HC Karnataka05 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 57

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.516 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 BMTC COMPLEX KORMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J., NEERALGI AND SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD., 'UTHUNGA', NO.1 PMK ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE -560 018…

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)

…held that Sales tax subsidy Industrial unit covered under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999, sales tax subsidy received from Government was capital receipt and not liable to tax. 7. The Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 88.(Bom.)(HC) wherein subsidy received to set up a new unit was held to be capital in nature. In the present case, it can be observed from the Scheme that the objectives for granting incentives to increase employment to establish new industrial units and enhance new capital in the Stale and not with a view to assist the companies in carrying out the…

Gateway Terminals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Panvel Circle, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 300/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka- Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabhan- Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…inSterling Food's case (supra ). Therefore, in the present cases, in which we are required to examine the eligible business of an industrial undertaking, we need to trace the source of the profits to manufacture. (see CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 762(Bom.). 15. Continuing our analysis of sections 80-IA/80-IB it may be mentioned that sub- section (13) of section 80-IB provides for applicability of the provisions of sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of section 80-IA, so far as may be, applicable to the eligible business under section 80-IB. Therefore, at the outset, we stated that on…

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

…of India in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. 4. 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 Coo…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

…ch in the earlier years on this issue:- (a) Shree Balaji Alloys Ltd vs. CIT (138 DTR 36)(SC) (b) CIT Vs. Rasoi Ltd (335 ITR 438)(Cal) (c) CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multipled Entertainment Centre P Ltd (373 ITR 014)(Delhi) (d) CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd (364 ITR 88)(Mum) (e) Associated Cement Cos. Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No.7594 & 7644/M/04) 4 M/s. Reliance Industries limited 8. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has followed by the decision rendered by Special Bench in holding that the Sales tax incentive is capital in nature. We also notice that the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal have, in the earlier years, uph…

M/S. Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 636/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI. JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2007-08, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/s. Delhi International The Deputy Commissioner of Airport Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.25/1, Skip House, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Museum Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AACCD 3570 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sunil Jain, CA Revenue by : Smt. Vandana Sagar Date of hearing : 19.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2018 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Ju…

M/S. Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 622/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

M/S. Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 596/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

M/S Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 581/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

Saraf Export, Churu vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 32/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80I

…ds [1999] 237 ITR 579. Therefore, in the present cases, in which we are required to examine the eligible business of an industrial undertaking, we need to trace the source of the profits to manufacture. (see CIT v Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. reported in [1986] 157 ITR 762." The Hon'ble Court analysed Duty Exemption Remission Scheme and held DEPB as an incentive. It held in para 18 as under: "Analysing the concept of remission of duty drawback and DEPB, we are satisfied that the remission of duty is on account of the statutory/policy provisions in the Customs Act/Scheme(s) framed by the Government of India. In the…

Plastiblends India Limited Through Its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range 8(2) Mumbai

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 80

…ood (supra). Therefore, in the present cases, in which we are required to examine the eligible business of an industrial undertaking, we need to trace the source of the profits to manufacture [see CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., reported in (1986) 157 ITR 762]. 15. Continuing our analysis of sections 80-IA/80-IB it may be mentioned that sub-section (13) of section 80-EB provides for applicability of the provisions of sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) to section 80-IA, so far as may be, applicable to the eligible business under section 80-IB. Therefore, at the outset, we state…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Addl. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-IV, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large…

A.C.I.T.. Cir.-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sunvijay Rolling and Enginering Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 224/NAG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri A.R. NinaweFor Respondent: Shri K.P. Dewani

…n assessee’s own case as under : 1) ITA No. 255/Nag/2012 in the case of assessee vide order dated 20- 10-2014. 2) ITA No. 179 to 183/Nag/07 in the case of assessee vide order dated 29-10-2007. 3) (2013) 351 ITR 309 (Bom) CIT vs. Chapalkar Brothers. 4) (2014) 364 ITR 88 (Bom) CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. 5) (2016) 138 DTR 036 (SC) CIT & Anr. Vs. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. 6) (2011) 333 ITR 0335 (Jammu & Kashmir) Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. vs. CIT & Or. 7) ITAT order in ITA No. 3428/Mum/2016 in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Rolling Mills P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. 9. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the recor…

Bright Brothers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 6907/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6907/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Bright Brothers Ltd. Addl. Cit Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor 610/611, Nirman Kendra Dr. Moses Road, Famous Studio Lane Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. Pan:Aaacb 3010 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयक अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयक आयक अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 14.8.14 Of Cit(A)-14,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing,Job-Work & Trading Of Injection-Moulded Plastic Products,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2011,Declaring Total Income At Rs.1.81 Crores.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.10.13,Determining Its Income At Rs.3.38 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh-ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6907/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Bright Brothers Ltd. Addl. CIT Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5th Floor 610/611, Nirman Kendra Dr. Moses Road, Famous Studio Lane Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. PAN:AAACB 3…

ACIT Cir 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Narendra Vegetable Products P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4575/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Rejesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Appeal Nos.4575-4577/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit Cir 4(3) (1) Vs. M/S Narendra Vegetable R.No.649, 6Th Floor Products Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Central Building No. 3, Master Bomanji Lane, Kalbadevi Mumbai – 400 002 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn1227G अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant By : Smt Beena Santosh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…3 (SC) has been discussed. It was opined that the test is that the collector of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy was granted. Likewise in the case of CIT v/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines 364 ITR 88 (Bom.) the said two decisions, namely, Sahney Steel and Press Works (supra) and Ponni Sugara and Chemicals (supra) have been discussed and commented that the Supreme Court had emphasized that collector of receipt in the hands of the assessee had to be determined with respect to purpose for which subsidy was given. If object of subsidy scheme was t…