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.

Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

ITA 7048/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 14A

…been granted by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 which has not been challenged before the Tribunal. This factual position has not been controverted by the ld. DR for the Revenue. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217 (SC) by referring the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 317 ITR 353 in which SLP preferred by the Revenue in the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed and upheld the view that refund of excise duty 13 ITA No.704/Kol./2015 ITA No.1586/Kol./2016 ITA No.7048/Kol./2017 ITA No.838/Kol./2015 ITA No.7483/Kol./201…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), 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…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 115JSection 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 43(6)Section 45Section 51Section 80

…ee by ITAT decision in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 22 The Supreme Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 4673 & 4754/Mum/2014 26. The Tribunal by referring to Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs Meghalaya Steel Ltd., 383 ITR 217 (SC) has concluded as under :- “9.10. We have gone through the order of the lower authorities as well as judgment placed before us. It is noted that aforesaid amount has been received by the assessee on account of sale of packing material which has been credited in the cost of purchase of packing material. Thus, effectively it is net cost of pur…

M/S Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1539/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1539/Del./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Crystal Crop Protection (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit, Gi-17, G.T. Karnal Road, Azadpur, Circle-6(2) Delhi-110033 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj3574E Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2Section 254

…in “Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.”, 12 Crystal Crop Protection (P) Ltd. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337, or in the alternate, in “Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.“, reported in (2016) 3 SCALE 192 (383 ITR 217 (SC)). Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons given above, the revenue's ground of appeal is dismissed.” 24. The appeal of the assessee on the ground of Excise Duty subsidy and interest subsidy as capital receipt is hereby allowed. 25. Regarding the claim of education cess as an allowable expenditure, we find that the CBDT vide Circular No. 91/58…

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Guwahati vs. M/S. Kishlay Food (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 232/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 43BSection 80Section 80ISection 80l

…made to tax this item should be deleted. Decision I have gone through the submission of the appellant as also the relevant observations of the Ld AO. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [192 (2016) 6 SCC 747], the aggregate addition of RS.2,92,20,684/- on account of VAT remission and interest subsidy, made by the AO on this account, are hereby deleted. Since, the above amounts have been found to be exigible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act, consequential ground qua permitting the deduction under section 80IC in respect of disallowance of the…

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range - 12, 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…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1`), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2037/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…and sundry balance of vendors written off. He submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 29 Meghalaya Steel Ltd., 383 ITR 217 (SC). He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Seshasayee Papers & Board Ltd., 243 ITR 0421 (Mad) which has been considered by the ld.CIT(A) in the finding extracted (supra). On the strength of these decisions, he submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly granted deduction to the assessee. On the othe…

The DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 3233/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…and sundry balance of vendors written off. He submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 29 Meghalaya Steel Ltd., 383 ITR 217 (SC). He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Seshasayee Papers & Board Ltd., 243 ITR 0421 (Mad) which has been considered by the ld.CIT(A) in the finding extracted (supra). On the strength of these decisions, he submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly granted deduction to the assessee. On the othe…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2490/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…and sundry balance of vendors written off. He submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 29 Meghalaya Steel Ltd., 383 ITR 217 (SC). He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Seshasayee Papers & Board Ltd., 243 ITR 0421 (Mad) which has been considered by the ld.CIT(A) in the finding extracted (supra). On the strength of these decisions, he submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly granted deduction to the assessee. On the othe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismised

ITA 5130/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

…same cannot be further reduced from the block of assets, for determining depreciation on the reduced WDV. For the above view, the AR has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 217, wherein it has been held that the subsidy forming part of P&L Account, being revenue in nature, has to be treated as derived from business or an industrial undertaking and will form part of business income, on which deduction u/s 80IB/ 80IC, is allowable. (vi) The appellant has further submitted that the grant of excise duty exemption, was accor…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismised

ITA 5129/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

…same cannot be further reduced from the block of assets, for determining depreciation on the reduced WDV. For the above view, the AR has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 217, wherein it has been held that the subsidy forming part of P&L Account, being revenue in nature, has to be treated as derived from business or an industrial undertaking and will form part of business income, on which deduction u/s 80IB/ 80IC, is allowable. (vi) The appellant has further submitted that the grant of excise duty exemption, was accor…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Avichal Buildcon (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5132/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

…ame cannot be further reduced from the block of assets, for determining depreciation on the reduced WDV. For the above view, the AR has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 217, wherein it has been held that the subsidy forming part of P&L Account, being revenue in nature, has to be treated as derived from business or an industrial undertaking and will form part of business income, on which deduction u/s 80IB/ 80IC, is allowable. (vi) The appellant has further submitted that the grant of excise duty exemption, was accor…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Avichal Buildcon (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5131/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

…ame cannot be further reduced from the block of assets, for determining depreciation on the reduced WDV. For the above view, the AR has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 217, wherein it has been held that the subsidy forming part of P&L Account, being revenue in nature, has to be treated as derived from business or an industrial undertaking and will form part of business income, on which deduction u/s 80IB/ 80IC, is allowable. (vi) The appellant has further submitted that the grant of excise duty exemption, was accor…

Padmavati Wind Energy Pvt. Ltd, Satara vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Satara

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1634/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: S/Shri Prayag Jha and Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Bishnoi
Section 80I

…before the Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Indo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. (supra.). The Tribunal after considering various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., reported as 383 ITR 217 held as under: “10. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rasiklal M. Dhariwal (HUF) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) had occasion to consider the nature of subsidy received in the form of sales tax incentive for generation of power in the State of Maharashtra. The Tribunal after analyzing the scheme of subsidy threadbare…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3772/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…s interest subsidy, insurance subsidy and similar incomes which are inextricably linked to the business of the appellant and are eligible for deduction u/s 80IC as held in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217(SC) dated 09.03.2016, It is pertinent to submit that Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision have considered their lordships earlier decision in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and accordingly, it is submitted that since the aforesaid judgment was not available when the orders of the lower authorities was passed, is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3771/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…s interest subsidy, insurance subsidy and similar incomes which are inextricably linked to the business of the appellant and are eligible for deduction u/s 80IC as held in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217(SC) dated 09.03.2016, It is pertinent to submit that Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision have considered their lordships earlier decision in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and accordingly, it is submitted that since the aforesaid judgment was not available when the orders of the lower authorities was passed, is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3770/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…s interest subsidy, insurance subsidy and similar incomes which are inextricably linked to the business of the appellant and are eligible for deduction u/s 80IC as held in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217(SC) dated 09.03.2016, It is pertinent to submit that Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision have considered their lordships earlier decision in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and accordingly, it is submitted that since the aforesaid judgment was not available when the orders of the lower authorities was passed, is…

M/S. Ozone Pharmaceutical Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2937/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…s interest subsidy, insurance subsidy and similar incomes which are inextricably linked to the business of the appellant and are eligible for deduction u/s 80IC as held in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217(SC) dated 09.03.2016, It is pertinent to submit that Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision have considered their lordships earlier decision in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and accordingly, it is submitted that since the aforesaid judgment was not available when the orders of the lower authorities was passed, is…

M/S. Ozone Pharmaceutical Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2936/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…s interest subsidy, insurance subsidy and similar incomes which are inextricably linked to the business of the appellant and are eligible for deduction u/s 80IC as held in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217(SC) dated 09.03.2016, It is pertinent to submit that Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision have considered their lordships earlier decision in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and accordingly, it is submitted that since the aforesaid judgment was not available when the orders of the lower authorities was passed, is…

M/S. Ozone Pharmaceutical Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2935/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…s interest subsidy, insurance subsidy and similar incomes which are inextricably linked to the business of the appellant and are eligible for deduction u/s 80IC as held in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217(SC) dated 09.03.2016, It is pertinent to submit that Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision have considered their lordships earlier decision in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and accordingly, it is submitted that since the aforesaid judgment was not available when the orders of the lower authorities was passed, is…