CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

3 ITR 217Reported decision#13195 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(45)minimum alternate taxrectification u/s 154section 254(2)mistake apparent from recordsection 35section 2(24)section 115jsection 254section 115jbsection 154section 115

Judgments citing CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

M/S LA OPALA RG LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…the assessee. There is essentially no element of profit derived from export incentives, but it is meant to reduce the cost of production. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd (384 ITR 217) wherein one of the questions before the Apex Court was whether insurance subsidy received from the Government could be said to be derived from the industrial undertaking and hence considered for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that the insurance subsidy was given to subsidize the cost of insura…

M/S LA OPALA RG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 153/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 80l

…the assessee. There is essentially no element of profit derived from export incentives, but it is meant to reduce the cost of production. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd (384 ITR 217) wherein one of the questions before the Apex Court was whether insurance subsidy received from the Government could be said to be derived from the industrial undertaking and hence considered for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that the insurance subsidy was given to subsidize the cost of insura…

B R AGROTECH LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6247/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…smissed by the Hon'ble Apex court holding that the issue raised in the appeal is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 or in the alternate, in CIT Vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 3 ITR 217. 18. The policy of Shree Balaji Alloys and the appellant is identical. 19. Thus, we find no dispute that the Excise Duty refund received by the assessee is to be treated as capital receipt. ITA Nos. 6244 to 6247/Del/2019 10 B R Agrotech Ltd. Exclusion of capital receipts in computing Book profit u/s 115JB 20. The concurrent reading of Section 2…

B R AGROTECH LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6246/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…smissed by the Hon'ble Apex court holding that the issue raised in the appeal is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 or in the alternate, in CIT Vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 3 ITR 217. 18. The policy of Shree Balaji Alloys and the appellant is identical. 19. Thus, we find no dispute that the Excise Duty refund received by the assessee is to be treated as capital receipt. ITA Nos. 6244 to 6247/Del/2019 10 B R Agrotech Ltd. Exclusion of capital receipts in computing Book profit u/s 115JB 20. The concurrent reading of Section 2…

B R AGROTECH LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6245/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…smissed by the Hon'ble Apex court holding that the issue raised in the appeal is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 or in the alternate, in CIT Vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 3 ITR 217. 18. The policy of Shree Balaji Alloys and the appellant is identical. 19. Thus, we find no dispute that the Excise Duty refund received by the assessee is to be treated as capital receipt. ITA Nos. 6244 to 6247/Del/2019 10 B R Agrotech Ltd. Exclusion of capital receipts in computing Book profit u/s 115JB 20. The concurrent reading of Section 2…

B R AGROTECH LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

…smissed by the Hon'ble Apex court holding that the issue raised in the appeal is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 or in the alternate, in CIT Vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 3 ITR 217. 18. The policy of Shree Balaji Alloys and the appellant is identical. 19. Thus, we find no dispute that the Excise Duty refund received by the assessee is to be treated as capital receipt. ITA Nos. 6244 to 6247/Del/2019 10 B R Agrotech Ltd. Exclusion of capital receipts in computing Book profit u/s 115JB 20. The concurrent reading of Section 2…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Kolkata……………......….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries...........................................……………….....Respondent 2, Red Cross Place Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaach 7557 G] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 31St, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 14ASection 250Section 80ISection 92B

…on the issue of computation of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Hon The ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (384 ITR 217) CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (384 ITR 217) and directed the Assessing Officer to and directed the Assessing Officer to include the subsidiary received on sales tax as profits for the purpose of computation of include the subsidiary received on sales tax as profits for the purpose of computation of include the subsidiary received on sales tax as…

M/S. LA OPALA RG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80ISection 80l

…the assessee. There is essentially no element of profit derived from export incentives, but it is meant to reduce the cost of production. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd (384 ITR 217) wherein one of the questions before the Apex Court was whether insurance subsidy received from the Government could be said to be derived from the industrial undertaking and hence considered for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that the insurance subsidy was given to subsidize the cost of insura…

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (3 ITR 217) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax