CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. & Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd.

356 ITR 235High Court2013#9021 most cited

What is CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. & Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Profits derived from industrial undertakings are eligible for deductions under sections like 80-IB or 80-IC, provided there is a direct nexus between subsidies received (such as transport, interest, power, or insurance subsidies) and the profits and gains generated by the industrial undertaking's manufacturing activities.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. · Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. · 356 ITR 235 · Gauhati High Court · Section 80-IB · Section 80-IC · industrial undertaking · subsidies · nexus · profits and gains · manufacturing activities · transport subsidy · interest subsidy · power subsidy · insurance subsidy

Judgments citing CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. & Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd.

Trishul Hi -Tech Industries, Guwahati vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 52/PAT/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 80I

…1 Trishul Hi-Tech Industries A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A. No. 52/Pat/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 TRISHUL HI-TECH INDUSTRIES Vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna (PAN: AACFT 3475 G) . Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 21.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2022 For the Appellant Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Rupesh Agarwal, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM: The only issue raised in the appeal by the assessee is against the…

M/S. Xalted Information Systems Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 461/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 M/s Xalted Information Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Systems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, No.31, 3rd Floor, Circle 7(1)(2) Xavier Board, Bengaluru. Primrose Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AAFCS 5024G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal b…

M/S Xalted Information Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 821/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 80Section 80I

…37,897,560.00 15. It is clear from the break-up of service fee received that they were all related to the FMCC & RA project of BSNL which the Assessee had to perform as sub-contractor. In the case of CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. & Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 235 (Gau) it was held that assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80-IB or 80-IC on transport subsidy, interest subsidy, power subsidy and insurance subsidy as it was held that there is a nexus between the subsidies, on one hand, and the profits and gains derived by, or derived from, the industrial undertakings concerned. The Hon’ble Gauhati High Cou…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sigma Plastic Industries, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5209/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 80I

…ngs in view of the direct nexus with the manufacturing activities. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Dharmapal Prem Chand 221 CTR 133 and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 356 ITR 235. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Apex Court, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/09/2019). (Amit Shukla) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18/09/2019 *Subodh*…

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6061/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…y the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is eligible for deduction U/S.804A. Before concluding that the appellant is eligible, it would also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (Gauhati) 356 ITR 235 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the definition of the term ''derived from". It may be noted here that the Assessing Officer has time and again stated in the assessment order that the proceeds received by the appellant from the group income cannot be considered to have been derived from M/s. Bhandar Power Ltd. the undertaking of gene…

M/S Brooks Laboratories Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 877/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…s applicable on excise duty refund as the same is not Income derived from the manufacturing activity of the industrial undertaking. Regarding the appellant's reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Gauwahti High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 356 ITR 235, it is noted that the decision of Hon'ble High Court was on subsidies received by the assessee on account of transport, interest, power and insurance which was in the nature of reimbursement to the assessee for element of cost relating to the manufacture and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court held that there was direct nexus between the profits of…

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

…1) of the Act this interest subsidy on TUFS is to be excluded while allowing deduction. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who after following the decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 235 (Gauhati), allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in Para 4.2.3 as under: - “4.2.3. This issue is exactly same, as was in immediately preceding year and in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 which was adjudicated in favour of the assessee by my Ld. predecessor vide order dated 30.12.2013. The relevant pant of the same is reproduced her…

ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Jagati Cokes (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 233/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…nd accordingly reject the ground raised by the revenue in this regard.’ Therefore, respectfully following the order of the ITAT as above as the facts are identical in the Appellant’s case, as well as that of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steel Ltd. & Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. 356 ITR 235 of the Guwahati High Court as above, it is held that the Transport Charges were part of the turnover of the Appellant and therefore eligible for deduction u//s 80IC. 4.3.1 With regard to the second issue regarding the transport subsidy, it is seen that the AO has not taken the correct calculation of transport subsidy. It is seen that the Appellan…

ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bst Textile Mils P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Bst Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. 309, 3Rd Ito 8 (1) (2) बनाम/ Mumbai Pin 400020 Floor Wodrow Bldg, Vera Desai Mumbai Pin 400053 Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaccb7130P

Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…of such subsidies are deduction in operational cost of the Assessee and thereby have dirt and first degree nexus with the profits. derived by the undertaking. Reliance was placed in the case of. CIT Vs. 1. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 2. Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 235 [Gauhati] That the case law cited, and relied upon by the AO being CIT vs Gheria Oil.Grarnudyog Workers Welfare Association 330 ITR 5 M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. 117 (2011) has also been referred to and considered while settling the above ratio in the said judgment reported in [2013] .356 ITR 235 supra. Further, the said case law has been…

DCIT (Ltu) -1, Mumbai vs. Lupin Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7513/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sanjay Garg (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…efund was a capital receipt. However, he held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act and in this regard the Ld CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Megalaya Steels Ltd. (356 ITR 235). 10. The Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that identical issue was considered by Hon'ble J&K High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (2011) 333 ITR 335 and Hon'ble High Court has held that excise refund received by that assessee, on identical circumstances, is capital in nature. He further submitted that the decision r…

ITO, WD-1(2), Jalpaiguri vs. Shri Manoj Garg, Jalpaiguri

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1442/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 80ISection 80lSection 80r

…rankly admitted that the solitary common issue involved in these appeals of the Revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Meghalaya Steels Limited [356 ITR 235]. In the said case, a similar issue relating to the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IC had I.T.A. Nos. 1442-1446/KOL./2015 Assessment years: 2008-2009 & 2012-2013 Page 3 of 4 come up for consideration in respect of subsidies granted by the Government and the same was decided by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in favour of the ass…

DCIT, Centralcircle-Xix, Kolkata vs. Meghalaya Sova Ispat Alloys (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 980/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that this issue is now squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. & Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 235 (Gau), wherein it has been held as under (from Head notes): “Held, that there was clear finding of the Tribunal that there was a direct nexus between the subsidies, on the one hand, and the profits and gains derived by, or derived from, the industrial undertakings concerned. This finding was not purely a finding of fact inasmuch as the finding ha…

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. & Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. (356 ITR 235) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax