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 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.

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Surya Gems, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-16(2)(4), M/S Surya Gems, बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.4, 02Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Bhaveshwar Sgar Patel Vs. Mumbai-400007 Compound 20 Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfs6513Q याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…stently upheld the contentions of the assessees similar to the contentions advanced by them. This is definitely 34 M/s Surya Gems one other reason to hold in favour of the assessees in these cases.—CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 121 CTR (SC) 201 : (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) applied. (Para 44) Conclusion : Where the cost of asset has been either paid fully or in part prior to the fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange, the cost of the asset is to be reworked for purposes of depreciation or investment allowance, as the case may be, with reference to the rate prevailing on the last date of the financial year…

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT(OSD) RG.2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 115JSection 43(1)Section 80H

…by the assessee. Accordingly he submitted that the Explanation 10 to sec.43(1) shall not have application in the facts of the instant case. In support of these propositions, Learned AR placed reliance on the following case laws:  CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (210 ITR 830)  Sasisri Extraction Ltd. Vs. CIT (307 ITR 127)  Godrej Agrovet Ltd. (ITA No. 1629/Mum/2009)  ACIT Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills (ITA No. 772/Mum/2012)  Cinemax India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.1287/mum/2012)  UniDeritend Ltd. Vs. Add.CIT (ITA No. 3474/Mum/2013) 10. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that sub-grant has be…

Manohar Processors Pvt. Ltd.(Dicitex Furnishing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT -Range 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the above two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 7120/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Manohar Processors Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. (Dicitex Home बनाम/ Mumbai Furnishings Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Shop No.2, Kakad Air Conditioner Market, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaccm7535R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hariom Tulsyan Shri Purushottam Kumar- Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 15/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(3)

…te a project is production incentive or operational subsidy and is not capital subsidy and hence as per the AO, it is chargeable to tax as revenue receipt. He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. J. Chemicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) wherein the dispute was whether the capital subsidy went to reduce the actual cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of depreciation. He noted that the ratio of the above decision has since been negatived by inserting Explanation -10 below section 43(1) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999. The AO also found that the asses…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dicitex Home Furnishing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the above two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 4375/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Hari Om TulsianFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Pal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…te a project is production incentive or operational subsidy and is not capital subsidy and hence as per the AO, it is chargeable to tax as revenue receipt. He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. J. Chemicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) ITA No. 4375/MUM/2015 & ITA No.2147/Mum/2015 3 wherein the dispute was whether the capital subsidy went to reduce the actual cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of depreciation. He noted that the ratio of the above decision has since been negatived by inserting Explanation -10 below section 43(1) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dicitex Home Furnishings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the above two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 2147/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Hari Om TulsianFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Pal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…te a project is production incentive or operational subsidy and is not capital subsidy and hence as per the AO, it is chargeable to tax as revenue receipt. He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. J. Chemicals (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) ITA No. 4375/MUM/2015 & ITA No.2147/Mum/2015 3 wherein the dispute was whether the capital subsidy went to reduce the actual cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of depreciation. He noted that the ratio of the above decision has since been negatived by inserting Explanation -10 below section 43(1) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.…

D.C.I.T, Cir-3 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Barjora Steel & Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1517/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1517/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: David Z.Chowngthu, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ashoke Mukherjee, FCA

…atuitous in nature and form capital receipt in the assessee's hands. The Assessee relied on the following two cases of the Apex Court, in support of its claims that the subsidy in question was capital receipt not chargeable to tax:- (a)PJ Chemicals Ltd (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) wherein the .Apex Court held that where the Govt subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries the specified percentage which is the percentage, of fixed capital cost which is the basis of determining the subsidy being only a measure adopted under the scheme to qualifying th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

ITTA/434/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Sri Vasudeva Textiles Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2000[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1689/Mds/2000 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1995-96 M/S Sri Vasudeva Textiles Limited, The Joint Commissioner Of 2/167, Ellappalayam Post, V. Income Tax, Pogalur, Annur Via Special Range – I, Coimbatore – 641 697. Coimbatore – 18. Pan : Cq - 9240 (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. Madhavan, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rom the cost of the fixed asset is for subsequent assessment year. Therefore, Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act is not applicable during the year under consideration. 9. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830, the Ld. representative submitted that the subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage the entrepreneurs to establish industries. The Apex Court further found that the expression “actual cost” in Section 43(1) of the Act needs to be interpreted liberally. The subsidy does not partake of the incidents which attract the conditions for its…

Gloster Limitedn (Formerly Known As Gloster Jute Mills Limited ), Kolkata vs. CIT-1, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 828/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Saumen Adak, FCA & Shri Harish Agarwal,ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Chaube, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 43(1)

…5, the above stated subsidy was considered as capital receipt accepting the contention of the assessee. For the sake of consistency also the AO should not have changed the stand now. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) has considered this issue and held that 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 adopted under the scheme to quantify the financial…

ACIT, Circle - 3, Asansol vs. M/S. Bharat Hi Tech (Cement) Pvt. Ltd., Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1626/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.AR

Section 143(3)

…al cost of the asset to the assessee.” We find that the Learned CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the facts and the documents available on record and had rightly applied the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs P.J. Chemicals Ltd reported in 210 ITR 830 (SC) and CIT vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC). We find that all the relevant documents have been duly filed before the Learned AO by the assessee and the Learned AO had not properly appreciated the same and accordingly the case laws relied upon by the Learned AO in Bombay Hardware Syndicate vs CIT (92 ITR 168…

JCIT(OSD), Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. Stadmed Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43(1)

…ibunal in the case of Universal Cables Limited (I.T.A. No. 679/KOL/2013 & Others dated 27.02.2015), wherein it was held that the expression “met directly or indirectly” as analyzed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Limited reported in 210 ITR 830, even after insertion of I.T.A. No. 222/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 4 of 7 Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act, would cover the case where the subsidy or other grant is given to offset the cost of an asset and not in the case where the subsidy is received merely to accelerate the industrial development of the State. It is,…

Uni Deritend Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Unideritend Limited, The Additional Commissioner Libery Building, Of Income Tax, Range – 1(3), Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, Vs. Room No.564, Mumbai – 400 020 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacu 0028K M.K. Road, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Santosh Mankoskar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2015

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Mankoskar, D.R

Section 4Section 41(1)Section 50

…to the case in hand. The co-ordinate Kolkata bench of the Tribunal in the case of “DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd.” (2014) 46 taxman.com 214 (Kolkata- Trib.), while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.” (1994) 210 ITR 830/76 taxman 611, has held that for computation of deprecation, no part of government subsidy for encouragement for setting up of industrial projects could be deducted from actual cost of WDV of fixed assets, if same is not relatable to acquisition of 5 M/s. UniDeritend Limited assets. The relevant observation is reproduced as under: “6. From the…

Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed with no costs

ITA/41/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 43(1)

…the Government towards meeting the cost of the assets and accordingly, applying the definition of "actual cost", suitably reduced the claim of depreciation. The dispute ultimately reacted the Supreme Court in the case of CIT-v. P.J. chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830. The dispute was resolved in favour of the -assessee, with the Supreme Court holding that the object of the subsidy, was to promote industrial growth in the States and merely because the quantum of the subsidy was calculated as a percentage of the capi4tl investment made by the assessee in the assets such as land, building, plant and machin…

Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Comissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed with no costs

ITA-37/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012

Section 260ASection 43(1)

…the Government towards meeting the cost of the assets and accordingly, applying the definition of “actual cost”, suitably reduced the claim of depreciation. The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830. The dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee, with the Supreme Court holding that the object of the subsidy was to promote industrial growth in the States and merely because the quantum of the subsidy was calculated as a percentage of the capital investment made by the assessee in the assets such as land, building, plant and machine…

Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Comissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed with no costs

ITA/37/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012

Section 260ASection 43(1)

Central Warehousing Corporaiton vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA - 464 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

Section 10Section 11BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

…in Section 10(29), which 2011:DHC:229-DB is derived from any other source, then such income is not exempt under that clause. 26. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.J. Chemicals [1994]210 ITR 830. In our view, however, reliance thereon is totally misplaced and the same has relevance whatsoever. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation [1992] 195 ITR 273 in a similar vein also does not advance the case of the assessee any further, as such we need n…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nce Act, 2002. In this judgment, there is no discussion or reasoning either on the scope of Section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 4(a) or the nature of 1976 or 2002- 2003 amendments. It has been laid down in CIT v. Podar Cement (supra) , CIT v. P.J. Chemicals, 210 ITR 830 (SC) and again in CIT v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 233 ITR 197 (SC) that where the predominant majority of the High Courts have taken certain view of the interpretation of a certain provision, the Supreme Court would lean in favour of the predominant view. The contention advanced by the Ld. Counsel appearing for a…

M/S.Virtual Soft Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68