CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.

210 ITR 830Supreme Court of India1994#622 most cited

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.

158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. · P.J. Chemicals · section 43(1) · actual cost · capital subsidy · reduction from cost of assets · depreciation allowance · section 32 · written down value · purpose of subsidy

Also reported as

121 CTR 20176 Taxmann 611

Sections most often in play

Section 43(1)Section 143(3)Section 32 Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 143(2)Section 153A Section 234B Section 234C

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 32(1)(i)section 43(1)initial assessment year section 32(1)(iia)section 80h minimum alternate tax written down value block of assets section 43a section 143(1)(a)(ii)section 80hh

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

Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 2855/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…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 DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 2791/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…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 DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 2790/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…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., Vadodara

ITA 618/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 3163/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 3123/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Vadodara

ITA 3122/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Vadodara

ITA 2858/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 2789/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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…

Atharva Polymers Private Limited, Shirur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1912/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Atharva Polymers Private The Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Cricle-1(1), Gat No.596, Dhoksanghvi, Pune. Ranjangaon Ganpati, Tal.Shirur, Pune – 412209. Pan: Aahca 1363 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit Tapadiya– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Punedated 25.07.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex Party Order. 2. The Ld. Ao Erred & Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made Of Rs.1,93,452/- On Account Of Delayed Contribution Made To Pf Although The Same Was Paid Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of Return U/S 139(1). 3. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Treatment Made W.R.T. Subsidy Received Of Rs.2,72,696/- Under Ip Scheme By Deducting The Receipt From Block Of Asset. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Subsidy Received Under Ip Scheme As Capital Receipt.

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1912/PUN/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Atharva Polymers Private The Dy.Commissioner of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Cricle-1(1), Gat No.596, Dhoksanghvi, Pune. Ranjangaon Ganpati, Tal.Shirur, Pune – 412209. PAN: AAHCA 1363 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Rohit Tapadiya– AR Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe – DR Date of hearing 09/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR.…

ACIT, Cen, Cir-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrosteel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2304/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, Central (Pan: Aaace4975B) Circle-4(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 In Ita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Electrosteel Casting Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- 4(4), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Department By - Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Assessee By - Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22 Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 46/Cit(A)-22/2014-15/17-18/Kol & 133/Cit(A)-22/2015-16/18-19/Kol Dated 31.07.2019 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Central Circle – 4(4), Kolkata, Dated 29.01.2018 & Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Dated 29.12.2018 Respectively. C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Ays 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Appeared For The Revenue & Sri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…n of fixed assets only. Under the given circumstances, the amount of subsidy, is not deductible from the actual of the cost under section 43(1)read with Explanation 10 of the Act. 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 830 (SC) has held that the expression "actual cost" needs to be interpreted liberally. The subsidy of the nature we are concerned with, does not partake of the incidents which attract the conditions for their deductibility from "actual cost". The Government subsidy,it is not unreasonable to say, is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting…

ACIT, Cen.Cir.-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrsteel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2303/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, Central (Pan: Aaace4975B) Circle-4(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 In Ita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Electrosteel Casting Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- 4(4), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Department By - Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Assessee By - Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22 Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 46/Cit(A)-22/2014-15/17-18/Kol & 133/Cit(A)-22/2015-16/18-19/Kol Dated 31.07.2019 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Central Circle – 4(4), Kolkata, Dated 29.01.2018 & Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Dated 29.12.2018 Respectively. C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Ays 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Appeared For The Revenue & Sri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…n of fixed assets only. Under the given circumstances, the amount of subsidy, is not deductible from the actual of the cost under section 43(1)read with Explanation 10 of the Act. 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 830 (SC) has held that the expression "actual cost" needs to be interpreted liberally. The subsidy of the nature we are concerned with, does not partake of the incidents which attract the conditions for their deductibility from "actual cost". The Government subsidy,it is not unreasonable to say, is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2013-14 The Asstt. Cit Cir. 6, Pune. Appellant Vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto C-10 Abhimanshree Society, Baner Road, Pune-411008 Pan : Aajcs 8944F Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By : Shri R.G. Gawli Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2022 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri R.G. Gawli

Section 32Section 43(1)

…of subsidy whether capital or revenue. It means the Tribunal's finding in respect to explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act has become final, wherein Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cl'T v. Pl Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) has considered the aspect of actual cost by observing as under: - "6. From the above facts and circumstances, admitted facts are that during the year under consideration assessee company received incentive subsidy from Govt. of West Bengal under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999 (WBIS) as encouragement for setting up of industrial project.…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97

…nce is placed on the following 40. The common judicial pronouncements wherein after considering ground of appeal on this the provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) as issue is as under: well as the decision of Hon‟ble SC in the case of P.J. Chemicals (210 ITR 830), it was held that sales ―On the facts and tax incentive cannot be reduced from the cost of in the capital investment as the percentage of capital circumstances of investment is only a mode of quantification of the case and in subsidy and not a payment to meet any portion of law, the Ld. the „actual cost‟: CIT(A) erred in not allowing the  PCIT…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune vs. Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt.Ltd, Pune

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

ITA 2992/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2992/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 6(1), Vs. Shriniwas Engineering Pune. Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Office- 5, Manasara Apartments, 1108/4, University Road, Near Suryamukhi Datta Man, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aajcs8944F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 03.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit (A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Provision In Package Scheme Of Incentives, 2007 To Show That The Asseessee Is Granted Subsidy Towards Meeting A Cost Of Asset & Cit(A) Has Erred

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…f the actual fixed assets, merely because 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 7 issue in the case of CIT vs. 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 adop…

Gujarat State Electricity Corp. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal of the Assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2991/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajai Pratap Singh, CIT/DR

Section 250(6)Section 43(1)

…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 I.T.A No. 2991/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 Page No 4 Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT Supreme Court by observing that the amount of subsidies and grants received by the assessee cannot be red…

M/S. Kinfra Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)

ITA/65/2018HC Kerala07 Apr 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

…s of the assessee for the purpose of Section 32 r/w Section 43 of the Act. According to the binding precedent, the financial assistance so received by the assessee is not adjusted from the cost of any asset of the assessee. PJ Chemicals deals 1(1994 210 ITR 830) ITA Nos.62&65/2018 12 with general financial assistance and the same analogy is applicable to the circumstances of the case as well. 8.1 Explanation 10, together with a proviso, has been inserted in Section 43(1) of the Act with effect from 1-04-1999. The memo explaining the reasons for insertion of explanation 10 in Finance (N…

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…s to meet the cost of the asset and hence should be reduced from the cost of the asset as per section 43 of the Act. 24. The Ld. counsel of the assessee on the other hand relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PJ chemicals Ltd (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) and submitted that subsidy received which is not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the asset, even though quantified as percentage of the cost of such asset, cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the asset for the purpose of computing depreciation. He further submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case…

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA.No.1285 and 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11 AND ITA No.1396 and 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./ITA.No.1327 and 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11 AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA.No.1414 and 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12…

Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1766/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1766/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hyundai Construction Equipment India Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Circle-9, Plot No.A/2, Chakan, Midc, Pune Phase Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune 410 501 Pan : Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

…at area and employment generation. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions : -DCIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2003) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB) -Income Tax Officer Vs. The Thermodors Pvt. Ltd. (Unreported) -CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) -CIT Vs. Elys Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 11 (Bom.) -CIT Vs. Tirumala Bricks and Tiles Factory (1996) 217 ITR 547 (AP) -CBDT Circular No.142 dated 1 August 1974 However, the Company for the purpose of its tax computation has offered the same to tax as a revenue receipt. The Company reserves its right to claim the above amount as capita…