What is CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the conditions under which a capital subsidy received by an assessee should be reduced from the 'actual cost' of an asset for computing depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, depending on whether the subsidy directly meets the cost of the asset.

How many judgments cite CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.?

158 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (210 ITR 830), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 43(1), Section 143(3), Section 32, Section 2(24)(xviii), Section 143(2), Section 153A.

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (210 ITR 830)

The DCIT, Circle-4, Vadodara vs. M/S. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1382/AHD/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…AR also referred to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Grace Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. [183 ITR 591] and CIT vs. Swastik Sanitary Works Ltd. [286 ITR 544], as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. [(1994) 210 ITR 830], where similar principles were upheld. Additionally, the AR argues that the revenue’s reliance on Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) is misplaced, as this provision applies only when a subsidy or grant is directly linked to the acquisition of an asset. 4.5. The AR concluded that the incentive received by the assessee does not satisfy the condition…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Vadodara vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1619/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…AR also referred to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Grace Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. [183 ITR 591] and CIT vs. Swastik Sanitary Works Ltd. [286 ITR 544], as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. [(1994) 210 ITR 830], where similar principles were upheld. Additionally, the AR argues that the revenue’s reliance on Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) is misplaced, as this provision applies only when a subsidy or grant is directly linked to the acquisition of an asset. 4.5. The AR concluded that the incentive received by the assessee does not satisfy the condition…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1), Vadodara vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2007/AHD/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…AR also referred to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Grace Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. [183 ITR 591] and CIT vs. Swastik Sanitary Works Ltd. [286 ITR 544], as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. [(1994) 210 ITR 830], where similar principles were upheld. Additionally, the AR argues that the revenue's reliance on Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) is misplaced, as this provision applies only when a subsidy or grant is directly linked to the acquisition of an asset. 4. 5. The AR concluded that the incentive received by the assessee does not satisfy the conditio…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…not income and as such is outside the scope of the charging section, both, under the normal provisions of the Act, as also under the MAT provisions of the Act. Subsidy when capital receipt not subject to tax: The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P. J. Chemicals Ltd (210 ITR 830) while considering the question as to whether the character and nature of a subsidy was really intended to subsidies the cost of the capital or was intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and established industries held as under: "Where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…not income and as such is outside the scope of the charging section, both, under the normal provisions of the Act, as also under the MAT provisions of the Act. Subsidy when capital receipt not subject to tax: The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P. J. Chemicals Ltd (210 ITR 830) while considering the question as to whether the character and nature of a subsidy was really intended to subsidies the cost of the capital or was intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and established industries held as under: "Where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Private Limited, Pune

ITA 1203/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 43(1)

…cause the amount of subsidy is calculated in term of certain percentage of investment in fixed assets. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the identical issue in the case of CIT vs. 10 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 210 ITR 830 and after review of the case law on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “Where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure…

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

ITA 1157/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 43(1)

…cause the amount of subsidy is calculated in term of certain percentage of investment in fixed assets. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the identical issue in the case of CIT vs. 10 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 210 ITR 830 and after review of the case law on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “Where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure…

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Chakan Pune vs. Dy.Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi

ITA 1156/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 43(1)

…cause the amount of subsidy is calculated in term of certain percentage of investment in fixed assets. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the identical issue in the case of CIT vs. 10 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 210 ITR 830 and after review of the case law on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “Where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure…

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

…the assessee acquired the same. There is no provision for reducing the value of WDV by any amount of incentive or subsidy. In this regard we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in case of CIT vs. PJ Chemicals reported in 210 ITR 830, where in the similar facts and circumstances it was held as under: In the instant case, the reasoning underlying, and implicit in, the conclusion reached by the majority of the High Courts cannot be said to be an unreasonable view and on a preponderance of preferability that view commends itself particularly in the context of a taxing statute.…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 405/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…at the resolution sanctioning the grant no where indicated that the grant was meant to offset the cost of the capital assets purchased by the company. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 121 CTR 201, wherein the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Grace Paper Industries P. Ltd., 83 CTR 1, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by observing that the amount of subsidies and grants received by the assessee cannot be reduced from the cost of assets. It was further submitted that the subsidy received under scheme cannot…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…at the resolution sanctioning the grant no where indicated that the grant was meant to offset the cost of the capital assets purchased by the company. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 121 CTR 201, wherein the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Grace Paper Industries P. Ltd., 83 CTR 1, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by observing that the amount of subsidies and grants received by the assessee cannot be reduced from the cost of assets. It was further submitted that the subsidy received under scheme cannot…

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 331/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…at the resolution sanctioning the grant no where indicated that the grant was meant to offset the cost of the capital assets purchased by the company. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 121 CTR 201, wherein the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Grace Paper Industries P. Ltd., 83 CTR 1, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by observing that the amount of subsidies and grants received by the assessee cannot be reduced from the cost of assets. It was further submitted that the subsidy received under scheme cannot…

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 330/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…at the resolution sanctioning the grant no where indicated that the grant was meant to offset the cost of the capital assets purchased by the company. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 121 CTR 201, wherein the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Grace Paper Industries P. Ltd., 83 CTR 1, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by observing that the amount of subsidies and grants received by the assessee cannot be reduced from the cost of assets. It was further submitted that the subsidy received under scheme cannot…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Grasim Industries Limited Addl. CIT- LTU, Mumbai (as a Successor to Aditya Birla (Now jurisdiction is with Dy. Nuvo Ltd.) Aditya Birla Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax, A Wing, 2nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. CC-1(4), Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Old CGO Building, Worli, Mumbai-400030. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 . PAN : AAACI1747H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1248/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Grasim Industri…

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Grasim Industries Limited Addl. CIT- LTU, Mumbai (as a Successor to Aditya Birla (Now jurisdiction is with Dy. Nuvo Ltd.) Aditya Birla Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax, A Wing, 2nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. CC-1(4), Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Old CGO Building, Worli, Mumbai-400030. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 . PAN : AAACI1747H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1248/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Grasim Industri…

DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 673/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

…he subsidy is quantified on the basis of the fixed capital investment but that does not mean that the subsidy is given to purchase the assets. Placing reliance on several decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 (SC) it was submitted that the subsidy received by the assessee from Haryana Govt. cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of computing the depreciation. The explanation was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who held that the capital subsidy was liable to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 to…

Sunbeam Lightweighting Solutions Pvt Ltd (Formely Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

…he subsidy is quantified on the basis of the fixed capital investment but that does not mean that the subsidy is given to purchase the assets. Placing reliance on several decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 (SC) it was submitted that the subsidy received by the assessee from Haryana Govt. cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of computing the depreciation. The explanation was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who held that the capital subsidy was liable to be reduced from the cost of the assets in terms of Explanation 10 to…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…of its source, is to enable the assessee to acquire new plant and machinery for future expansion of its manufacturing capacity in a backward area, the entire subsidy must be held to be a capital receipt. Further the Supreme Court in the case of P J Chemicals (210 ITR 830) has held that the incentive granted at the prescribed percentage of fixed capital investment in backward districts was an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to the backward areas was an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to the backwards areas to establish industries and was not a payment to meet any portion of the actual cos…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4921/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sugam Thomas Josh, CIT- DR

Section 43(1)

…s much as the subsidy has not been granted for meeting cost of any asset but for larger public interest of industrial development of the State of Punjab. 17. An identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830. In that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to Income-tax. The Assessing Officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act. The matter travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Su…

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3430/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sugam Thomas Josh, CIT- DR

Section 43(1)

…s much as the subsidy has not been granted for meeting cost of any asset but for larger public interest of industrial development of the State of Punjab. 17. An identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830. In that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to Income-tax. The Assessing Officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act. The matter travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Su…

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.

What is CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.

The DCIT, Circle-4, Vadodara vs. M/S. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

The DCIT, Circle-4, Vadodara vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

The DCIT, Circle-4(1), Vadodara vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Vadodara

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Private Limited, Pune

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Chakan Pune vs. Dy.Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Surat

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

Sunbeam Lightweighting Solutions Pvt Ltd (Formely Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida

Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad