CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

383 ITR 217Supreme Court of India2016#450 most cited

What is CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. authority for?

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. · Section 80IB · Section 80IC · subsidy · excise duty refund · revenue receipt · business income · depreciation · P&L account

Also reported as

67 Taxmann.com 158

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 80IBSection 2(24)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 1961Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 115jasection 80hhsection 80hsection 80hhcsection 28(iv)section 80ibsection 115jb(2)section 80icsection 80iasection 80ideduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

…e rendering the decision had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prakash Oils Ltd reported in 58 DTR 279; decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd reported in 383 ITR 217 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Advance Detergents Ltd reported in 339 ITR 81 (Del). Hence, it could be safely concluded that the said receipt of compensation, even if construed as Revenue in nature, would be eligible for consequential deduction u/s.80IA of the Act is it is directly linked with the power ge…

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…80IC does not arise. " In any case, there is close and direct nexus between “other income” and “business of the assessee”. Hence, such "other income" is eligible for "deduction u/s 80IC". The Ld. AR relied uponthe decision of "CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. - 383 ITR 217 (SC)". " Interest of Rs.4,83,615/- on income tax refund" has already been offered for tax, as is evident from the followings: " Detailed break-up of "Interest income" of Rs.54,47,339/- which includes "interest of Rs.4,83,615/-". " Ledger of "Interest on IT refund" for the year under consideration. " Note 18 - Other income" of Audited Annual Accou…

Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…T, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page 190 at pages 193-194 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 68 at 73-74). A still later decision in the assessee’s favour is that of the Hon’ble Calcutta…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…T, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page 190 at pages 193-194 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 68 at 73-74). A still later decision in the assessee’s favour is that of the Hon’ble Calcutta…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…T, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page 190 at pages 193-194 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 68 at 73-74). A still later decision in the assessee’s favour is that of the Hon’ble Calcutta…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…T, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page 190 at pages 193-194 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 68 at 73-74). A still later decision in the assessee’s favour is that of the Hon’ble Calcutta…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata vs. M/S.Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd

ITA/140/2019HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…ALE 192. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.” As against the order passed in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd., the revenue had preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., 383 ITR 217 (SC) and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Thus, the issue having been settled in favour of the assessee in the aforementioned decisions, we are inclined to apply the same to the case on hand. In light of the above, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenu…

Crystal Corp Protection Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3930/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

…1 M/s Crystal Corp Protection Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3930/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Crystal Corp Protection Ltd. Vs ACIT B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area, Circle-5(2) Delhi- PIN: 110052 New Delhi (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCJ3574E (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. S. S. Nagar, CA Respondent by Sh. Lalit Kishore, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 08.07.2022 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM This appeal is filed by the asses…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Barak Valley Cements Ltd

ITAT/145/2018HC Calcutta06 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 260ASection 80I

…ny answer to the substantial questions of law which have been raised before 4 us. In fact, such questions have been considered and answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., reported in (2016) 6 SCC 747. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT, reported in (2009)9 SCC 328 and submitted that the remission of VAT is not directly relatable to the business of an industrial undertaking for manufacturing or selling its product and, therefo…

Sajjanraj Jain & Wife (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 195/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…lied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as against the LTCG. Further, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the cost of shares from the sale value and made the entire addition by applying the provisions…

Sajjan Raj Jain (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 194/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…lied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as against the LTCG. Further, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the cost of shares from the sale value and made the entire addition by applying the provisions…

Prakash Chand Jain(HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…lied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as against the LTCG. Further, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the cost of shares from the sale value and made the entire addition by applying the provisions…

Premlata, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…lied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as against the LTCG. Further, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the cost of shares from the sale value and made the entire addition by applying the provisions…

Anita Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…lied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as against the LTCG. Further, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the cost of shares from the sale value and made the entire addition by applying the provisions…

Sunita Devi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…lied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as against the LTCG. Further, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the cost of shares from the sale value and made the entire addition by applying the provisions…

Sunita Devi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…lied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as against the LTCG. Further, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the cost of shares from the sale value and made the entire addition by applying the provisions…

Narayan Industires, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 60(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6153/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 253

…d and not the gross value of such incentives. The aforesaid contention of the appellant is supported by Circular No.39 of 2016 dated 29.11.2016 issued by the CBDT after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited: 383 ITR 217 (SC) (discussed supra in Ground of Appeal Nos. 1 to 1.2). The fundamental principle that emerges from the aforesaid decisions and the CBDT circular, it is respectfully submitted, is that reimbursement of any cost incurred in the course of manufacture of eligible goods/ product does not inherently result in any separate species of profit/ income,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…outcome of the generation and distribution of power by the Assessee since the Assessee does not have any other source of business. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 6 SCC 747. 8. Countering the above submissions, Mr. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department contended that the critical words in Section 80-IA of the IT Act were that the other income must be derived from the business of generation of electricity and not merely ‘attributable’ to it. In other words, such income should have a direct and a…

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…outcome of the generation and distribution of power by the Assessee since the Assessee does not have any other source of business. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 6 SCC 747. 8. Countering the above submissions, Mr. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department contended that the critical words in Section 80-IA of the IT Act were that the other income must be derived from the business of generation of electricity and not merely ‘attributable’ to it. In other words, such income should have a direct and a…

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…