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.

A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Kamarhatty Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Kamarhatty Company Ltd., AY 2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 132/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Income- Vs M/s. Kamarhatty Company Ltd. tax, Circle-1(1), Kolkata. . (PAN: AABCK2916K) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 11.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 19.08.2021 For the Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Addl. CIT For the Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal preferred b…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 737/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…s own case for assessment year 2011-12 to 2016-17 in ITA Nos.2412 to 2416/Chny/2019, where the Tribunal after considering relevant facts and also by following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 392 held that subsidy granted by the Government of Maharashtra for setting up new 61 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 manufacturing unit under Industrial Promotion Policy is capital in nature which is not taxable under the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “17. We have considered th…

DCIT-2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…s own case for assessment year 2011-12 to 2016-17 in ITA Nos.2412 to 2416/Chny/2019, where the Tribunal after considering relevant facts and also by following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 392 held that subsidy granted by the Government of Maharashtra for setting up new 61 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 manufacturing unit under Industrial Promotion Policy is capital in nature which is not taxable under the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “17. We have considered th…

DCIT, Corporate Circle -2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…s own case for assessment year 2011-12 to 2016-17 in ITA Nos.2412 to 2416/Chny/2019, where the Tribunal after considering relevant facts and also by following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 392 held that subsidy granted by the Government of Maharashtra for setting up new 61 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 manufacturing unit under Industrial Promotion Policy is capital in nature which is not taxable under the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “17. We have considered th…

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2038/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…s own case for assessment year 2011-12 to 2016-17 in ITA Nos.2412 to 2416/Chny/2019, where the Tribunal after considering relevant facts and also by following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 392 held that subsidy granted by the Government of Maharashtra for setting up new 61 I.T.A. Nos. 2145, 2210, 2038/Chny/2017, 737/Chny/2018 & C.O No.76/Chny/2018 manufacturing unit under Industrial Promotion Policy is capital in nature which is not taxable under the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “17. We have considered th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/91/2015HC Karnataka26 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 41(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.91 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD., 7TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE PAN:AABCK7281 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) - - - THIS…

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld
Section 2(24)

…with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given and the point of time at which the subsidy is paid, source thereof and the form of subsidy would not be relevant as per the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. V/s CIT (306 ITR 392). By applying the purpose test, the subsidies would be capital receipts and hence, not chargeable to the tax. 4 M/s Sangam India Limited Assessment Year: 2015-16 2.4 However, rejecting assessee‟s submissions, Ld. AO formed an opinion that the subsidies were revenue in nature and accordingly, added the same to the income of the assessee. 2.5 The…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Inox Air Products Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1118/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1042/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1042/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Inox Air Products Private Limited, ………. अपीलाथ" / Solitaire, Office No.4, First Floor, Appellant Near Aga-Khan Palace, Nagar Road, Pune. PAN : AAAC15569D. बनाम v/s The Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / Circle – 11, Pune. Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1118/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Addl.Commissi…

Inox Air Products Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 1042/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1042/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1042/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Inox Air Products Private Limited, ………. अपीलाथ" / Solitaire, Office No.4, First Floor, Appellant Near Aga-Khan Palace, Nagar Road, Pune. PAN : AAAC15569D. बनाम v/s The Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / Circle – 11, Pune. Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1118/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Addl.Commissi…

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 139(5)

…on 30.11.2013 declaring the taxable income of Rs.10,08,580/- where under the assessee had offered the excise subsidy of Rs.14,55,88,357/- also. Subsequently, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT, 287 CTR 459, the Excise Subsidy has to be characterized as capital receipt under the “New Industrial Policy and Other Concessions Scheme” dated 14.06.2002 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and therefore, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a letter dated 01.02.2016 and made certain s…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Danisco (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 6025/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…) after considering the facts and the Rule 28C Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, which provides for treating the sales tax to be a capital subsidy and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392, held that sales tax subsidy receipt was a capital receipt. Ld. CIT (A) has also taken note of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that as per clause xviii of Section 2(24) of the Act, any assistance in the form of subsidy shall be chargeable to tax only after 01.04.2016. 33. Admittedly, the assessee had set u…

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 5203/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…) after considering the facts and the Rule 28C Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, which provides for treating the sales tax to be a capital subsidy and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392, held that sales tax subsidy receipt was a capital receipt. Ld. CIT (A) has also taken note of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that as per clause xviii of Section 2(24) of the Act, any assistance in the form of subsidy shall be chargeable to tax only after 01.04.2016. 33. Admittedly, the assessee had set u…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 7899/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…) after considering the facts and the Rule 28C Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, which provides for treating the sales tax to be a capital subsidy and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392, held that sales tax subsidy receipt was a capital receipt. Ld. CIT (A) has also taken note of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that as per clause xviii of Section 2(24) of the Act, any assistance in the form of subsidy shall be chargeable to tax only after 01.04.2016. 33. Admittedly, the assessee had set u…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 7898/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…) after considering the facts and the Rule 28C Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, which provides for treating the sales tax to be a capital subsidy and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392, held that sales tax subsidy receipt was a capital receipt. Ld. CIT (A) has also taken note of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that as per clause xviii of Section 2(24) of the Act, any assistance in the form of subsidy shall be chargeable to tax only after 01.04.2016. 33. Admittedly, the assessee had set u…

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 7897/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…) after considering the facts and the Rule 28C Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, which provides for treating the sales tax to be a capital subsidy and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392, held that sales tax subsidy receipt was a capital receipt. Ld. CIT (A) has also taken note of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that as per clause xviii of Section 2(24) of the Act, any assistance in the form of subsidy shall be chargeable to tax only after 01.04.2016. 33. Admittedly, the assessee had set u…

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 7896/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…) after considering the facts and the Rule 28C Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, which provides for treating the sales tax to be a capital subsidy and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392, held that sales tax subsidy receipt was a capital receipt. Ld. CIT (A) has also taken note of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that as per clause xviii of Section 2(24) of the Act, any assistance in the form of subsidy shall be chargeable to tax only after 01.04.2016. 33. Admittedly, the assessee had set u…

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 3518/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…) after considering the facts and the Rule 28C Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, which provides for treating the sales tax to be a capital subsidy and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392, held that sales tax subsidy receipt was a capital receipt. Ld. CIT (A) has also taken note of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 wherein it has been stated that as per clause xviii of Section 2(24) of the Act, any assistance in the form of subsidy shall be chargeable to tax only after 01.04.2016. 33. Admittedly, the assessee had set u…

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited..................................………………….............Appellant Block-EP, Plot-Y-14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [PAN : AABCP 9181 H] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata...........................………..…......Respondent Appearances by: Smt. C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Smt. K.M. Gupta, Adv., appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Goulen Hangs…

Jsw Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - CC - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2503/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Jsw Steel Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bandra Kurla Complex Income Tax, Bandra (E) Central -4 Room No.663, 6Th Floor Mumbai- 400 051 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaacj4323N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By Ms. Leena Shrivastav Date Of Hearing 06/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2021

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…the Act and the order of ld. PCIT is wrong and deserved to quashed . The ld AR submitted that the decisions 6 M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., reported in 228 ITR 253 and Ponni Sugar Chemicals (306 ITR 392) are not applicable to the present case as the issue involved in those decisions were that of subsidy. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra as the same is squarely covered by the decision Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sulzer India Ltd., (369 ITR 177)(Bom) and the same has been upheld by the Apex…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…f fiscal incentive subsidy has to be determined having regard to the purpose for which subsidy was given. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392, Sahney Steel and Press Works vs. CIT: 228 ITR 253; and V.S.S.V. Meenakshi Achi: 60 ITR 253 and various other decisions. 142. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after following the purpose test as explained in Sahney Steel (supra) held that the point of time at…