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.

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1669/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…on record and feel that this export incentive receipt is in someway connected to capital receipt in the form of technology upgradation and expansion of capacity of the plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has examined this issue in great detail and held that if the purpose of incentive or subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was of capital in nature. For clarity the relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as under: “15. In the decision of House of Lords…

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1668/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…on record and feel that this export incentive receipt is in someway connected to capital receipt in the form of technology upgradation and expansion of capacity of the plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has examined this issue in great detail and held that if the purpose of incentive or subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was of capital in nature. For clarity the relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as under: “15. In the decision of House of Lords…

DCIT Cent. Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1667/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…on record and feel that this export incentive receipt is in someway connected to capital receipt in the form of technology upgradation and expansion of capacity of the plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has examined this issue in great detail and held that if the purpose of incentive or subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was of capital in nature. For clarity the relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as under: “15. In the decision of House of Lords…

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner of (formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar and Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACM7863L Assessee by : Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar & Shri Pratik Podar, ARs Revenue by : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR Date of hearing: 03.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by Mahin…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. 500082 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 189/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…industrial units and expansion of existing industrial units pursuant to which IPA was to be paid in form of power subsidy, sales tax/VAT subsidy to the assessee. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in their judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) has held that whether the subsidy or grant given by the Government is in the nature of capital or revenue will have to be judged and decided with reference to the object and the purpose for which the subsidies are granted and not the form and manner of payment. 30. From the given facts of the present case, especially to the Gazette Notification…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITA 188/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…industrial units and expansion of existing industrial units pursuant to which IPA was to be paid in form of power subsidy, sales tax/VAT subsidy to the assessee. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in their judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) has held that whether the subsidy or grant given by the Government is in the nature of capital or revenue will have to be judged and decided with reference to the object and the purpose for which the subsidies are granted and not the form and manner of payment. 30. From the given facts of the present case, especially to the Gazette Notification…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 187/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…industrial units and expansion of existing industrial units pursuant to which IPA was to be paid in form of power subsidy, sales tax/VAT subsidy to the assessee. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in their judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) has held that whether the subsidy or grant given by the Government is in the nature of capital or revenue will have to be judged and decided with reference to the object and the purpose for which the subsidies are granted and not the form and manner of payment. 30. From the given facts of the present case, especially to the Gazette Notification…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 186/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…industrial units and expansion of existing industrial units pursuant to which IPA was to be paid in form of power subsidy, sales tax/VAT subsidy to the assessee. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in their judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) has held that whether the subsidy or grant given by the Government is in the nature of capital or revenue will have to be judged and decided with reference to the object and the purpose for which the subsidies are granted and not the form and manner of payment. 30. From the given facts of the present case, especially to the Gazette Notification…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. Ambuja Cement Eastern Limited

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/376/2017HC Calcutta11 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260A

…OD-1 & 2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income tax) ORIGINAL SIDE IA No. GA/1/2017 (Old No. GA/3676/2017) ITAT/376/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA Vs. M/S AMBUJA CEMENT EASTERN LIMITED IA No. GA/2/2017 (Old No. GA/3678/2017) ITAT/376/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA Vs. M/S AMBUJA CEMENT EASTERN LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 11th April, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … for the appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, A…

Shri Ritum Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 466/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. Pan: Actpj 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Assessee’S Rectification Petition Filed U/S 154 Claiming The Subsidy Received By The Assessee As Industrial Promotion Assistance (Ipa) From The State Govt, Under West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance To Industrial Units) Scheme, As Capital Receipt In Place Of Revenue Receipt. The Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Same Cannot Be Claimed By The Assessee In The Rectification Petition U/S 154 Since The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Case Of Goetze India Ltd. Vs Cit In 157 Taxman 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Fact That The Assessee’S Case Is Squarely Covered By Judicial Decisions On Similar Facts In The Case Of Sharda Cropchem Ltd. Vs Dcit In 71 Itr (Trib) 141 & Dcit & Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills In 130/Asr/2014. Therefore, The Action Of 2 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 The Ld. Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Is Unjustified & The Claim Needs To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…So far as the claim of 4 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 the assessee on merits is concerned, the ld. DR has been fair enough to admit that as per the settled position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 / 174 Taxman 87 (SC) and further by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Alloys vs CIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) dated 19.04.2016 and the decision of the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Limited [2011] 335 ITR 438 (Cal) (HC) dated 19.05.2011, the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1468/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ] I.T.A. No. 1468/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAACI 5573 R) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 20.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2022 For the Appellant Shri N.S. Saini, A.R For the Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [hereinafte…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 41Section 80

…. On reading of the scheme, it is apparent that it is formulated to extend incentive for promotion of industries in the state. Tata Chemicals Ltd.; AY 03-04 017. As held by Honourable Supreme court in CIT Madras Vs Ponni Sugar [2008] 174 Taxman 87 (SC)/[2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC)/[2008] it is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. In the present case when once the object of subsidy is to industrialize state, it is capital receipt. All the judgments cited before us also lay do…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- I, Kolkata vs. M/S. Budge Budge Refineries Limited

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

ITAT/261/2017HC Calcutta08 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv
Section 260ASection 41(1)

…fication would be relevant for the taxability of the same going by the objects of the incentive scheme. The Tribunal taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.: [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) as also the decision of this case in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rasoi Ltd : [2011] 335 ITR 438 (Cal.) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Before us, the learned Counsel would place heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra) and submitted tha…

ACIT, Circle - 16 (1), Mumbai vs. Bbc Worldwide Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.C T Mathew. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 92C

…ncur losses a fact by the Tribunal in its narration of facts. In fact the assistance was given at point of time when the losses were anticipated, through the letters which were relied upon. So far as the decision in C/T v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/ 174 Taxman 87 (SC) is concerned, no doubt the Court clarified how a subsidy should be treated i.e., by purposive test The Court presciently held that if the object of the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on the revenue account On the other hand, under the subsidy scheme, if the obj…

Sundara Varadhan, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kanchipuram

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 887/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.887/Chny/2019 (िनधा3रण वष3 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Sundara Varadhan Balamani Ito-Ward-2, बनाम/ No.5, Nagareeswarar Koil Street, Kancheepuram Vs. Kancheepuram-631 502. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aftpb-8395-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan (Ca) –Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30-11-2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan (CA) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय -ी वी. दुगा3 राव, "ाियक सद5 एवं माननीय -ी मनोज कुमार अ9वाल ,लेखा सद5 के सम;। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.887/Chny/2019 (िनधा3रण वष3 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Sundara Varadhan Balamani ITO-Ward-2, बनाम/ No.5, Nagareeswarar Koil Street, Kancheepuram Vs. Kancheepuram-631 502. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AFTPB-8395-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R. Viswanathan (CA)…

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

Section 143(3)

…a revenue receipt but simultaneously laid down the ratio decidendi of applying the ‘purpose test’ for ascertaining the true nature of subsidy. The purpose test has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 326 ITR 392 (SC) by holding that the relevant consideration should be the purpose of subsidy and not its source or mode or payment. When we apply such a test on the facts and circumstances of the case, it demonstrably 9 Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd., emerges that the purpose of subsidy is industrial growth; it is linked with the setting up…

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

…dition to necessary infrastructure in processing/developing the backward area, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 22. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd vs. CIT reported in 306 ITR 392 was with regard to the taxability of incentives bestowed to new / expanded sugar factories under the Sampat Incentive Scheme by way of (a) additional price realization by reason of enhancement of free sale sugar quota and (b) excise duty rebate. 23. The assessee claimed the said incentives to be in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to…

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

…dition to necessary infrastructure in processing/developing the backward area, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 22. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd vs. CIT reported in 306 ITR 392 was with regard to the taxability of incentives bestowed to new / expanded sugar factories under the Sampat Incentive Scheme by way of (a) additional price realization by reason of enhancement of free sale sugar quota and (b) excise duty rebate. 23. The assessee claimed the said incentives to be in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to…

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

…dition to necessary infrastructure in processing/developing the backward area, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 22. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd vs. CIT reported in 306 ITR 392 was with regard to the taxability of incentives bestowed to new / expanded sugar factories under the Sampat Incentive Scheme by way of (a) additional price realization by reason of enhancement of free sale sugar quota and (b) excise duty rebate. 23. The assessee claimed the said incentives to be in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to…

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

…dition to necessary infrastructure in processing/developing the backward area, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 22. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd vs. CIT reported in 306 ITR 392 was with regard to the taxability of incentives bestowed to new / expanded sugar factories under the Sampat Incentive Scheme by way of (a) additional price realization by reason of enhancement of free sale sugar quota and (b) excise duty rebate. 23. The assessee claimed the said incentives to be in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to…