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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.?

203 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (383 ITR 217), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 80IB, Section 2(24), Section 14A, Section 271(1)(c).

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (383 ITR 217)

Padmavati Wind Energy Pvt.Ltd, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 897/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 897 To 899/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

Section 80I

…ongly claimed benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) on ‘Sales Tax Benefit’ 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 threadbar…

DCIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 471/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…would only tantamount to recovery of expenses incurred directly in connection with the CFS unit. We find that the reliance has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC) in this regard. Hence we direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the same. 3.3.9. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed. 4. DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 421/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…would only tantamount to recovery of expenses incurred directly in connection with the CFS unit. We find that the reliance has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC) in this regard. Hence we direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the same. 3.3.9. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed. 4. DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES…

DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 496/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…would only tantamount to recovery of expenses incurred directly in connection with the CFS unit. We find that the reliance has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC) in this regard. Hence we direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the same. 3.3.9. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed. 4. DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES…

M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 483/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…would only tantamount to recovery of expenses incurred directly in connection with the CFS unit. We find that the reliance has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC) in this regard. Hence we direct the ld AO to grant deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the same. 3.3.9. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee for Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed. 4. DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Bst Textile Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Mitra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 9

…e is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd [2016] 383 ITR 217 (SC), which was also considered by Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1684/Mum/2014 vide order dated 16.03.2017, wherein exactly identical issue was considered and decided in favour of assessee vide para 6 to 9 as under: - “6. However, AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and denied the benefit of deduction u/s…

M/S Braza Tyres (P) Ltd., Paonta Sahib vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Surinder Meena, JCIT

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…05 by the Himachal Pradesh Government which is part of the profit and gains of business derived from the Industrial Undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961 as per Circular No. 39/2016 dated 29-11-2016 and CIT Vs Meghalya Steels Ltd. (383 ITR 217) (SC). This addition is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla is unjustified in upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer regarding addition of Rs.l,19,533/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground of investment of Rs.51,00,000/- in share application money of other co…

M/S Chinq Micron Chem (P) Ltd., Paonta Sahib vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Surinder Meena, JCIT

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…05 by the Himachal Pradesh Government which is part of the profit and gains of business derived from the Industrial Undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961 as per Circular No. 39/2016 dated 29-11-2016 and CIT Vs Meghalya Steels Ltd. (383 ITR 217) (SC). This addition is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla is unjustified in upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer regarding addition of Rs.l,19,533/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground of investment of Rs.51,00,000/- in share application money of other co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 736/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji …. अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, 9/439-8-B, Station Road, Ichalkaranji, Distt.-Kolhapur PAN : ABIPP0423H …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.22 to 25/PUN/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 200…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 735/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji …. अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, 9/439-8-B, Station Road, Ichalkaranji, Distt.-Kolhapur PAN : ABIPP0423H …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.22 to 25/PUN/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 200…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 734/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji …. अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, 9/439-8-B, Station Road, Ichalkaranji, Distt.-Kolhapur PAN : ABIPP0423H …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.22 to 25/PUN/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 200…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 733/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji …. अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, 9/439-8-B, Station Road, Ichalkaranji, Distt.-Kolhapur PAN : ABIPP0423H …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.22 to 25/PUN/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 200…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…ness activity of the assessee but from the eligible business activity of the assessee only. Therefore interest/penal interest and other income is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA (4)(iii). 4.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217 after considering the decision of Liberty India and after approving the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Marino Ply and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT 209 ITR 508 held that transport subsidies were inseparably connected with the business carried on by the assessee and thus, income derived from the business eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. Thus,…