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.

53

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 194CSection 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 75section 92(1)comparable uncontrolled price methodcost plus methodsection 80efunctional analysissection 80jjasection 80jjaasection 33bsection 92f

Judgments citing CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.

DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata vs. M/S Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…uantum of deduction to a specified percentage of profits. This is the importance of the words "derived from industrial undertaking" as against "profits attributable to industrial undertaking".—CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Bom) 98 : (1986) 157 ITR 762 (Bom) approved.” Respectfully follow the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). We allow assessee’s ground of appeal. 19. Now coming to the remaining issues of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 559/Kol/2008 for which following grounds no. 2 and 3 were raised. 2. Whether under the facts a…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, R-11, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 305/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…uantum of deduction to a specified percentage of profits. This is the importance of the words "derived from industrial undertaking" as against "profits attributable to industrial undertaking".—CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Bom) 98 : (1986) 157 ITR 762 (Bom) approved.” Respectfully follow the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). We allow assessee’s ground of appeal. 19. Now coming to the remaining issues of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 559/Kol/2008 for which following grounds no. 2 and 3 were raised. 2. Whether under the facts a…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, R-11, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 304/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…uantum of deduction to a specified percentage of profits. This is the importance of the words "derived from industrial undertaking" as against "profits attributable to industrial undertaking".—CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Bom) 98 : (1986) 157 ITR 762 (Bom) approved.” Respectfully follow the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). We allow assessee’s ground of appeal. 19. Now coming to the remaining issues of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 559/Kol/2008 for which following grounds no. 2 and 3 were raised. 2. Whether under the facts a…

Regen Powertech Private Lmited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 786/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

…that subsidy was not linked to investments. The capital incentive given to the assessee by the State Government is to set up a new unit in State and shall be a Capital receipt and supported his arguments with decision of CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Enginess Ltd (364 ITR 88) wherein held that ‘’Capital incentive given to assessee by State Government to enable assessee to set up a new unit in State would be capital receipts’’. In the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (129 Taxmann 231) the Jurisdictional High Court held that the ‘’subsidy amount received from the State Government is capital receipt not l…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Regen Powertech (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

…that subsidy was not linked to investments. The capital incentive given to the assessee by the State Government is to set up a new unit in State and shall be a Capital receipt and supported his arguments with decision of CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Enginess Ltd (364 ITR 88) wherein held that ‘’Capital incentive given to assessee by State Government to enable assessee to set up a new unit in State would be capital receipts’’. In the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (129 Taxmann 231) the Jurisdictional High Court held that the ‘’subsidy amount received from the State Government is capital receipt not l…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…o-operative Consumer Federation Ltd.: 254 ITR 599 (Del) (b) DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd: (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB) affirmed by the Bombay High Court in 339 ITR 632 (c) CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Mum.) (d) CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd: 364 ITR 88 (Mum) (e) CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal in ITA: 472 of 2010 (P&H) (f) CIT v. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.) (g) DCIT v. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.) (h) DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) (i) CIT v. Samta Chavigarh: ITA No. 144 of 2007 (Raj)/ 222 Taxman 205 (Mag.) (j) CIT v. Udupi Builders P. Ltd.319 ITR 440 (Kar)…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…identical to the above cases decided by Supreme Court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra), Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd(supra) and by Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries (supra), Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309, Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88, by Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Leisure ltd. 351 ITR 314. However, the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly held that the facts are different and has erroneously refused to follow these judgements. Following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon‟ble Jammu…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6697/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…identical to the above cases decided by Supreme Court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra), Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd(supra) and by Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries (supra), Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309, Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88, by Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Leisure ltd. 351 ITR 314. However, the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly held that the facts are different and has erroneously refused to follow these judgements. Following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon‟ble Jammu…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6696/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…identical to the above cases decided by Supreme Court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra), Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd(supra) and by Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries (supra), Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309, Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88, by Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Leisure ltd. 351 ITR 314. However, the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly held that the facts are different and has erroneously refused to follow these judgements. Following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon‟ble Jammu…

M/S. Nanda Mint & Pine Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6172/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nanda Mint & Pine Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chemicals Ltd., 1/10, Munshi Circle-13(1), New Delhi Niketan, Asaf Ali Road, Near Kamala Market, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccn0965G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. K. Sampath & Raj Kumar, Advocates Respondent By Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr.Dr & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Nanda Mint & Pine Chemicals Tax, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Ltd., 1/10, Munshi Niketan, Asaf Ali C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Road, Near Kamala Market, New Delhi Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccn0965G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, Cit(Dr) Respondent By S/Sh. K. Sampath & Raj Kumar, Advocates Date Of Hearing 09.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: These Two Appeals Of The Revenue & The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Dated 08.07.2011 & 14.11.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)-Xvi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009- Ays: 2008-09 & 2009-10 10 Respectively. Since The Common Issue Of Deduction Under Section 80Ib Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Involved In Both The Appeals, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

…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 vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Bom) 98 : (1986) 157 ITR 762 (Bom)] 15. Continuing our analysis of s. 80-IA/80-IB it may be mentioned that sub-s. (13) of s. 80-IB provides for applicability of the provisions of sub-s. (5) and sub-ss. (7) to (12) of s. 80-IA, so far as may be, applicable to the eligible business under s. 80-IB. Therefore, at the outset, we stated that one needs to read ss. 80-I, 80-IA and 8…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nanda Maint & Pine Chamicals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5063/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nanda Mint & Pine Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chemicals Ltd., 1/10, Munshi Circle-13(1), New Delhi Niketan, Asaf Ali Road, Near Kamala Market, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccn0965G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. K. Sampath & Raj Kumar, Advocates Respondent By Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr.Dr & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Nanda Mint & Pine Chemicals Tax, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Ltd., 1/10, Munshi Niketan, Asaf Ali C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Road, Near Kamala Market, New Delhi Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccn0965G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, Cit(Dr) Respondent By S/Sh. K. Sampath & Raj Kumar, Advocates Date Of Hearing 09.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: These Two Appeals Of The Revenue & The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Dated 08.07.2011 & 14.11.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)-Xvi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009- Ays: 2008-09 & 2009-10 10 Respectively. Since The Common Issue Of Deduction Under Section 80Ib Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Involved In Both The Appeals, These Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

…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 vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (1985) 44 CTR (Bom) 98 : (1986) 157 ITR 762 (Bom)] 15. Continuing our analysis of s. 80-IA/80-IB it may be mentioned that sub-s. (13) of s. 80-IB provides for applicability of the provisions of sub-s. (5) and sub-ss. (7) to (12) of s. 80-IA, so far as may be, applicable to the eligible business under s. 80-IB. Therefore, at the outset, we stated that one needs to read ss. 80-I, 80-IA and 8…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

ITTA/571/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

M/S Liberty India vs. Commr.of Income Tax, Karnal

C.A. No.-005891-005891 - 2009Supreme Court31 Aug 2009
Section 260ASection 80

…ling Food (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) 18 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…