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 32Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 32(1)(i)section 43(1)initial assessment yearsection 32(1)(iia)section 80hminimum alternate taxwritten down valueblock of assetssection 43asection 143(1)(a)(ii)section 80hh

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

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4185/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4067/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

ACIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 341/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 220/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…he backward state, employment generation, etc. and is in the form of capital nature, such subsidy is not required to reduced from the cost of asset u/s 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. reported in 210 ITR 830 has observed that in that case, the assessee had received a capital subsidy, which was claimed as capital receipt, not exigible to income-tax. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that such subsidy is liable to be reduced form the cost of assets, 89 ITA. No. 167/Del/2009 & 7 ors. in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) o…

Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Indore vs. M/S Agya Auto Limited, Indore

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 540/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Agya Auto Ltd, The Income Tax Vs. 121 A.B. Road, Vijay Nagar, Officer 1(1), Indore Scheme No.54, Indore (Revenue ) (Respondent) Pan No.Aacca6203C Revenue By Smt. Vinita Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Shri Manoj Gupta & Pankaj Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing 04.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2021 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IT [2015) 57 taxmann.com 95 in context of same scheme i.e. Madhya Pradesh Industrial Investment Promotion Assistance Scheme, 2004 held the incentive received as capital receipt after following the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. PJ. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 (SC). 4. Delhi Tribunal in case of Dy. CIT v. Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) 139 ITD 628 (Delhi)(Trib.) wherein it is held that sales tax subsidy given under dispersal of Industries scheme as incentive to set up industries in areas other than Mumbai, Pune and Thane is capital receipt. 5. Delhi Tribunal in case of Dy. CIT v. Indo Rama Textiles Ltd. (20…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chhindwara vs. M/S. Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank, Chhindwara

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 135/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 43Section 43(1)

…on the capital borrowed for capital investment, which has now been specifically provided under Explanation 8 to s. 43(1) and proviso to s. 36(1)(iii). Continuing further, for the same reason, i.e., Explanation 10, the decision in CIT v. P.J. Chemicals [1994] 210 ITR 830 (SC) shall apply no longer. In that case, it was held that it is the predominant object for which the subsidy is granted by the Government that is relevant, so that where the same is toward incentivizing the movement of the industry to a backward area, the same would not impact the cost of the project and, thus, the depreciation or the developmen…

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Orbit Exports Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 6360/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Dcit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Orbit Exports Ltd., Room No.649, 6Th Floor E-27-29, Mangalore Street Aayakar Bhavan (Adi Marizaben Street) Mumbai – 400 020 Ballard Estate, S. Bhagat Sing Marg, Mumbai – 400 038 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco1268K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…facts of the instant case. We find that this finding has not been controverted by the revenue before us. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., reported in 210 ITR 830 in support of his contentions wherein it was held as under:- M/s. Orbit Exports Ltd., “Government subsidy, is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, though quantified as or geared to a percentage-of such cost. If that be so, it does not partake of the character of a payment intended either direc…

M/S. Joy Global (Uk) Limited, (Formerly Knows As Joy Mining Machinery Limited), Kolkatta vs. The DCIT (Int. Taxn.)-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2008/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Bains, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195(2)Section 244ASection 44D

…n is based on rate per ton is only a mode of recovering the price of product but it should not dilute the essential character of the contract. For this proposition, we draw support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. J. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio that the nature of transaction cannot be determined by the method in which consideration is computed. 26. Assuming, Yet not accepting the activities relating to SSI creates a PE of the appellant company in India, income of PE to be taxed in India in terms of Article 7 of India-UK Treaty…

Autoline Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 970/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

…Government of Maharashatra, it becomes clear that the subsidy is a capital receipt not a revenue receipt. The impugned order is upheld to this extent 11. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) held that subsidy received in Central Scheme is a Capital receipt and the same should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation. The legislature introduced Explanation 10 to section 43(1) with effect from the assessment year 1999-2000 providing that subsidy on assets acquired after this date should be reduced from the cost of a…

Autoline Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2983/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

…Government of Maharashatra, it becomes clear that the subsidy is a capital receipt not a revenue receipt. The impugned order is upheld to this extent 11. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) held that subsidy received in Central Scheme is a Capital receipt and the same should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation. The legislature introduced Explanation 10 to section 43(1) with effect from the assessment year 1999-2000 providing that subsidy on assets acquired after this date should be reduced from the cost of a…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Tamilnadu Food Grains Marketing Yard, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1435, 1436 & 1437/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Tamilnadu Food Grains Marketing Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Vs. Yard, Madurai-Alanganallur Road, Madurai. Sikkandar Chavadi, Madurai 625 018. [Pan : Aabct1101F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sridhar Dora, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Gopalan, Ret. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar Dora, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Gopalan, Ret. JCIT
Section 25Section 43(1)

…mission that the grant was capital in nature, it was not towards any specific fixed asset of the assesse and hence, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the entire value of assets and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. PJ Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 (SC). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed from the approval order dated 07.22.2004 of the Government of India that 75% of the cost of the project of ₹.39.96 crores, being ₹.29.97 crores has been granted as “Grant from Government” and the balance cost is to be borne by the contribution by users, lendin…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Tamilnadu Food Grains Marketing Yard, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1436/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1435, 1436 & 1437/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Tamilnadu Food Grains Marketing Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Vs. Yard, Madurai-Alanganallur Road, Madurai. Sikkandar Chavadi, Madurai 625 018. [Pan : Aabct1101F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sridhar Dora, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Gopalan, Ret. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar Dora, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Gopalan, Ret. JCIT
Section 25Section 43(1)

…mission that the grant was capital in nature, it was not towards any specific fixed asset of the assesse and hence, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the entire value of assets and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. PJ Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 (SC). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed from the approval order dated 07.22.2004 of the Government of India that 75% of the cost of the project of ₹.39.96 crores, being ₹.29.97 crores has been granted as “Grant from Government” and the balance cost is to be borne by the contribution by users, lendin…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Tamilnadu Food Grains Marketing Yard, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1435/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1435, 1436 & 1437/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Tamilnadu Food Grains Marketing Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Vs. Yard, Madurai-Alanganallur Road, Madurai. Sikkandar Chavadi, Madurai 625 018. [Pan : Aabct1101F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sridhar Dora, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Gopalan, Ret. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar Dora, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Gopalan, Ret. JCIT
Section 25Section 43(1)

…mission that the grant was capital in nature, it was not towards any specific fixed asset of the assesse and hence, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the entire value of assets and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. PJ Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 (SC). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed from the approval order dated 07.22.2004 of the Government of India that 75% of the cost of the project of ₹.39.96 crores, being ₹.29.97 crores has been granted as “Grant from Government” and the balance cost is to be borne by the contribution by users, lendin…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpon.Ltd., Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 633/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R
Section 143(3)

…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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Alkoplus Producer Pvt. Ltd, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 23/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

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

…rnment of Maharashatra, it becomes clear that the subsidy is a capital receipt not a revenue receipt. The impugned order is upheld to this extent. 11. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) held that subsidy received in Central Scheme is a Capital receipt and the same should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation. The legislature introduced Explanation 10 to section 43(1) with effect from the assessment year 1999-2000 providing that subsidy on assets acquired after this date should be reduced from the cost…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Alkoplus Producers Private Ltd., Latur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 1222/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

…rnment of Maharashatra, it becomes clear that the subsidy is a capital receipt not a revenue receipt. The impugned order is upheld to this extent. 11. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) held that subsidy received in Central Scheme is a Capital receipt and the same should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation. The legislature introduced Explanation 10 to section 43(1) with effect from the assessment year 1999-2000 providing that subsidy on assets acquired after this date should be reduced from the cost…