How many judgments cite CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.?

577 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 2(24)(xviii), Section 37(1), Section 80P(2)(d).

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 367,164 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 115JB Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 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 year section 80hhc section 80hh section 2(24)additional depreciation book profits written down value block of assets section 32(1)liable to tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…on of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. the amount receivable by the appellant on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance, would be capital in nature. 5.2. In the case of CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 306 ITR 392 (SC), by applying the decision in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under the scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is granted. In other words, one has to apply the purpose test. Th…

ACIT Cir 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Narendra Vegetable Products P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4575/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Rejesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Appeal Nos.4575-4577/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit Cir 4(3) (1) Vs. M/S Narendra Vegetable R.No.649, 6Th Floor Products Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Central Building No. 3, Master Bomanji Lane, Kalbadevi Mumbai – 400 002 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn1227G अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant By : Smt Beena Santosh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…halkar Brothers, order dated 8th June, 2011 has opined that the object of the subsidy was to promote construction of multiplex theatre complexes. Such receipt of subsidy was held on “capital account”. In this decision, the decision of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals 306 ITR 392 (SC) and the decision of 8 M/s Narendra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 4575 - 4577/Mum/2016 Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 (SC) has been discussed. It was opined that the test is that the collector of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy was granted.…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Nikmo Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 53/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.53/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) D.C.I.T. – 9)2), M/S Nikmo Finance Pvt. बनाम/ 2 Nd Floor,Room No. 218 Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Point, M.K. Road, 349, 8 Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aabcn9974G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey

Section 143(3)

…ipt in the hands of appellant. The purpose for which a grant is given is the area of paramount importance rather the source, which is quite immaterial as held by the various Courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd - 306 ITR 392 has observed that "one has to apply the purpose test. The point of time at which subsidy is paid is immaterial. If the object of the scheme is to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then, the receipt of the subsidy would be on capital account. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Lt…

M/S Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 556/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

…e power subsidy granted to the assessee was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. To arrive at the said conclusion, the Third Member relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited reported in 306 ITR 392. The Division Bench vide its order dated 15.07.2016 has already given effect to the order of the Third Member and the issue thus has been decided finally in favour of the assessee in asessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Even in A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10, a similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee vide…

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)

…taken for building and plant machinery under TUF Scheme of the Government is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. In the above decision, their Lordships relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 5 M/s Manohar Processors Pvt. Ltd. (Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd.) (SC) and held that the subject subsidy is a capital receipt. The ld. CIT(A) followed the above decision and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. 5. Before us, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the AO. Specific reference was made by him to the decision…

Svg Fashion Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1217/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…under TUF Scheme is capital in nature. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it has been held that it is the purpose of the incentive which decides its nature and not the modality or the source thereof. That thisissue is also favourably covered by the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), wherein it has held that subsidy received for expan…

ACIT, CC- Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…tification thereon would be irrelevant for taxability of the same going by the objects of the incentive scheme 2000 of West Bengal Government. We also find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd & Ors reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) had held as under:- “The character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under a scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is granted. In other words, one has to apply the purpose test. The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. If the obje…

DCIT, C.C.Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1552/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

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)

…taken for building and plant machinery under TUF Scheme of the Government is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. In the above decision, their Lordships relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and held that the subject subsidy is a capital receipt. The ld. CIT(A) followed the above decision and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. 5. Before us, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the AO. Specific reference was made by him to the decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (supra). 6. Before us,…

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)

…taken for building and plant machinery under TUF Scheme of the Government is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. In the above decision, their Lordships relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and held that the subject subsidy is a capital receipt. The ld. CIT(A) followed the above decision and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. 5. Before us, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the AO. Specific reference was made by him to the decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (supra). 6. Before us,…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Nimko Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7042/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Shivaji B. Ghode, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R

…of new cinema houses', (v) the State Government had decided to grant the subsidy in view of the fact that setting up new multiplex complexes is highly capital intensive, with a long gestation period. 3.3.1. The Honble Bombay High Court relied on Ponni Sugars (306 ITR 392) Where The Hon'ble Supreme Court had explained its previous Judgement in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd vs CIT (228 ITR 253) as under:- ITA No.7042/Mum/14 A.Y. 11-12 [ITO vs. M/s. Nikmo Entertainment Ltd.] Page 3 "The importance of the judgement of this court in Sahney Steel case lies in the fact that it has discussed and analyzed the entire c…

M/S Shyam Steel Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri M. Balaganesh, A M & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J M]

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR

…s ACIT reported in (2016 ) 65 taxmann.com 222(Kolkata-Trib.) The Hon’ble Third Member decided the issue under reference in favour of the assesse taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars reported in 306 ITR 392, Ld.DR urged the Bench to place such order as part and parcel of the record, but, however, we are of the view that no credence could be given to the said order in view of the fact that this Bench is occasioned to dispose off the present appeals in pursuance of the order of Third Member as it has become binding on us and accordingly, the order pla…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 94/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

…assessee had to be determined with respect to the purpose for which subsidy is given by applying the purpose test, as held in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Ors. itself and reiterated in later judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & ors. (2008) 306 ITR 392, referred to in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. In view of above, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & ors. against the revenue, no substantial question of law arises”. Thus we find that on identical issue the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee. In these circ…

Solaris Chemtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5202/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Solaris Chemtech Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Now Amalgated With Solaris Circle-9(1), Chemtech Industries Ltd.), New Delhi. Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacb8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd., Circle 9(1), (Now Amalgated With Solaris New Delhi. Chemtech Industries Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacb8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav,Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18:07.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav,AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR

Section 115J

…a then incentive would be capital. And if the subsidies went to fill the hole in the profits then such a subsidy would be revenue. 16. Further the assessee seeks to rely on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd 306 ITR 392(SC), in this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the incentives are given only to new units and not to supplement the trade receipts then such incentives are capital receipts. The Hon’ble Apex court in referring to the old decisions of House of Lords in Seaham Harbour Dock Vs Crook 16 Tax Cases 333(HL), has held that form and mechanism of…

Price Waterhouse Coppers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 2, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2033/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ccordingly pleaded that in view of the following judgments, the interest subsidy received for the purpose of setting up of the project should only be treated as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax :- CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) Shree Balaji Alloys vs CIT reported in (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) – This was later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Shree Balaji Alloys in Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19.4.2016. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, he argued that in any case, the interest s…

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Price Water House Coopers Pvt., Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1523/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1521/KOL/2013[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…at the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that identical issue was decided in favour of the appellant by CIT(A)/ ITAT in appellant’s own case for AY 2005-06 following the decisions of the apex court in the case of CIT v Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 (SC). 11.4 That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that since the object of subsidy was to promote industrial growth/ development, to generate employment, etc., the subsidy received was in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. 11.5 That the Assessing Officer erred on fa…

Grabal Alok Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1776/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.P.LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Mukundraj Chate

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92B

…assessee had to be determined with respect to the purpose for which subsidy is given by applying the purpose test, as held in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Ors. itself and reiterated in later judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & ors. (2008) 306 ITR 392, referred to in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. In view of above, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & ors. [2008] 306 ITR 392(SC) against the revenue, no substantial question of law arises”. 11. Thus we find that on identical issue the matter has been decided in fav…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…he subsidy for setting up of new Industry is a capital receipt and not Income. Thus the learned Assessing Officer was wrong in rejecting the claim of the assessee that the subsidy is a capital receipt and not Income. In CIT Vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.; 306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the norms/laid down in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT; 248 ITR 253 (SC) and has observed at page 400 as under: “.. The Importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney steel case lies in the fact that it has discussed and analyzed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to…