CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

306 ITR 392Supreme Court of India2008#107 most cited

What is CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

577

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. · 306 ITR 392 · capital receipt vs revenue receipt · subsidy taxability · incentive scheme purpose test · sales tax incentive capital receipt · excise duty exemption capital receipt · section 2(24)(xviii) · section 43(1) · investment incentive taxability · purpose test subsidy · nature of receipt

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 87219 CTR 105

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 43(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 43(1)initial assessment yearsection 80hhcsection 80hhsection 2(24)additional depreciationbook profitswritten down valueblock of assetssection 32(1)liable to tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…be applicable. Further, the object of the subsidy was not to run the business more profitably and therefore, the same was not revenue receipt. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) which upheld the application of purpose test in the matter of subsidy. 8. However, Ld. AO noted that the subsidy was received after setting up of the business and it was meant only for running of the business and therefore, the same would be revenue in nature. Further, the subsidy provides concession of 25% of relevant taxes paid by the elig…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…be applicable. Further, the object of the subsidy was not to run the business more profitably and therefore, the same was not revenue receipt. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) which upheld the application of purpose test in the matter of subsidy. 8. However, Ld. AO noted that the subsidy was received after setting up of the business and it was meant only for running of the business and therefore, the same would be revenue in nature. Further, the subsidy provides concession of 25% of relevant taxes paid by the elig…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…be applicable. Further, the object of the subsidy was not to run the business more profitably and therefore, the same was not revenue receipt. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) which upheld the application of purpose test in the matter of subsidy. 8. However, Ld. AO noted that the subsidy was received after setting up of the business and it was meant only for running of the business and therefore, the same would be revenue in nature. Further, the subsidy provides concession of 25% of relevant taxes paid by the elig…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…be applicable. Further, the object of the subsidy was not to run the business more profitably and therefore, the same was not revenue receipt. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) which upheld the application of purpose test in the matter of subsidy. 8. However, Ld. AO noted that the subsidy was received after setting up of the business and it was meant only for running of the business and therefore, the same would be revenue in nature. Further, the subsidy provides concession of 25% of relevant taxes paid by the elig…

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5250/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…upreme Court has held that the character of the of the subsidy in the hands of the recipient is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy has been given. 26. The Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited 306 ITR 392 had the occasion to consider the taxability of incentive bestowed on new / expanded sugar factories and the Hon’ble Supreme Court following Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 held that the subsidy received by the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt since the object behind the same was to assist entrepreneurs in setting up of…

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5249/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…upreme Court has held that the character of the of the subsidy in the hands of the recipient is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy has been given. 26. The Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited 306 ITR 392 had the occasion to consider the taxability of incentive bestowed on new / expanded sugar factories and the Hon’ble Supreme Court following Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 held that the subsidy received by the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt since the object behind the same was to assist entrepreneurs in setting up of…

M/S. Jindal (India0 Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5248/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…upreme Court has held that the character of the of the subsidy in the hands of the recipient is to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy has been given. 26. The Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited 306 ITR 392 had the occasion to consider the taxability of incentive bestowed on new / expanded sugar factories and the Hon’ble Supreme Court following Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 held that the subsidy received by the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt since the object behind the same was to assist entrepreneurs in setting up of…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…d addition and also the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s case for A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd 228 ITR 253 (SC) & Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd 306 ITR 392 which held that subsidy received in respect of octroi is not a capital receipt. 52. The Ld.AR contended that the impugned octroi incentive received under the “package scheme of incentives 1993”announced by the Government of Maharashtra for moving industries to certain backward areas of Maharashtra in order to develop the under developed and devel…

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…d addition and also the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s case for A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd 228 ITR 253 (SC) & Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd 306 ITR 392 which held that subsidy received in respect of octroi is not a capital receipt. 52. The Ld.AR contended that the impugned octroi incentive received under the “package scheme of incentives 1993”announced by the Government of Maharashtra for moving industries to certain backward areas of Maharashtra in order to develop the under developed and devel…

ACIT Cent. Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2550/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…cheme is capital in nature. iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held that it is the purpose of the incentive which that it is the purpose of the incentive which decides its nature and decides its nature and not the modality or the source thereof. not the modality or the source t…

ACIT- CC -3, Mumbai vs. Aym Syntex Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2549/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…cheme is capital in nature. iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held that it is the purpose of the incentive which that it is the purpose of the incentive which decides its nature and decides its nature and not the modality or the source thereof. not the modality or the source t…

Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2342/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…cheme is capital in nature. iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held that it is the purpose of the incentive which that it is the purpose of the incentive which decides its nature and decides its nature and not the modality or the source thereof. not the modality or the source t…

M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cent Cir-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2341/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…cheme is capital in nature. iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held that it is the purpose of the incentive which that it is the purpose of the incentive which decides its nature and decides its nature and not the modality or the source thereof. not the modality or the source t…

Aym Syntex Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2340/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…cheme is capital in nature. iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has held that it is the purpose of the incentive which that it is the purpose of the incentive which decides its nature and decides its nature and not the modality or the source thereof. not the modality or the source t…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1834/MUM/2021[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, D.R
Section 43(1)

…103 taxmann.com 436 and decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Indian Petrochemical Ltd. 74 taxmann.com 163 and also by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392. ITA No.1834/M/2021 & ITA No.1736/M/2021 7 M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. 11. At the very outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y. 1996-97 to 2000-01 in assessee’s own case vide order dated 29.04.2022, copy of order is availab…

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1736/MUM/2021[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, D.R
Section 43(1)

…103 taxmann.com 436 and decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Indian Petrochemical Ltd. 74 taxmann.com 163 and also by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392. ITA No.1834/M/2021 & ITA No.1736/M/2021 7 M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. 11. At the very outset, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y. 1996-97 to 2000-01 in assessee’s own case vide order dated 29.04.2022, copy of order is availab…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed and that of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sapna Bhatia, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80I

…s not ‘revenue receipt’. 2.3 The Assessee while relying upon the Excise Notifications No. 56/57 dated 14.11.2012 issued by the Central Excise Department and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemical Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392(SC), wherein it was held “that the excise duty refund are purely capital receipts, hence, not chargeable to tax”and of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335(J&K) wherein it was held “that excise duty refund, interest subsidy and insurance subsidy received with the object of creatin…

M/S. Insecticides (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed and that of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3297/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sapna Bhatia, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80I

…s not ‘revenue receipt’. 2.3 The Assessee while relying upon the Excise Notifications No. 56/57 dated 14.11.2012 issued by the Central Excise Department and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemical Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392(SC), wherein it was held “that the excise duty refund are purely capital receipts, hence, not chargeable to tax”and of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335(J&K) wherein it was held “that excise duty refund, interest subsidy and insurance subsidy received with the object of creatin…

ACIT, Central Circle, Moradabad vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahamedabad

ITA 9516/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…13/- made for the purpose of income computation u/s 115JB in the circumstances when these receipts are of revenue character when examined from the angle of purpose test as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [306 ITR 392 (SC)]. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,00,000/- on account of Debenture redemption Reserve in circumstances when the said amount is an appropriation towards reserve and therefore the same is to be added to the income of the assessee for computation of income for the purpo…

ACIT, Central Circle, Moradabad vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahamedabad

ITA 9515/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…13/- made for the purpose of income computation u/s 115JB in the circumstances when these receipts are of revenue character when examined from the angle of purpose test as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [306 ITR 392 (SC)]. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,50,00,000/- on account of Debenture redemption Reserve in circumstances when the said amount is an appropriation towards reserve and therefore the same is to be added to the income of the assessee for computation of income for the purpo…