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 367,181 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 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.

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…a). He has further pointed out that this decision has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [(2017) 80 taxmann.com 239] 10.5 On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Ponni Sugar Mills (2008) 306 ITR 392 in which purpose test was laid down for deciding the character of subsidy received. He has strongly argued that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in rectification order dated 09.03.2016 deserves to be reversed. Moreso, there was no apparent P a g e | 12 ITA No. 349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt India Ltd. mistake and the action of…

Parsi Salsette Bldg No. 1 Chs Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. II raised by the Assessee is allowed and as a result, Ground No

ITA 1734/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…he providing credit facilities to its members. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the expression "engaged in", as has 13 Assessment Year 2021-2022 been held in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 87/306 ITR 392 (SC), would necessarily entail an examination of all the facts of the case. This Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) held: "20. In order to earn exemption under section 80P(2) a cooperative society must prove that it had engaged itself in carrying on any of the several businesses referred to in sub-section (2). In that connection, it i…

M/S Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5451/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153A

…ubsidy is for meeting capital expenditure, for achieving a national objective/purpose inpublic interest, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax and relied on the following decisions: • CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by SC vide order dated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) 35. The ld AR emphasized that in the context of the very same units which were subsequently demerged to Ji…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5254/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153A

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5253/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…f subsidy is for meeting capital expenditure, for achieving a national objective/purpose inpublic interest, the same would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax and relied on the following decisions: • CIT V. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by SC vide order dated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) 35. The ld AR emphasized that in the context of the very same units which were subsequently demerged to Jin…

Kitex Garments Limited, Kizhakkambalam vs. DCIT 1(1), Corporate Circle, Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 920/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 920 /Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kitex Garments Ltd. .......... Appellant 6/496, Kizhakkambalam, Aluva 683562 [PAN: AABCK0714F] vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Gopi K., CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 20.09…

M/S. Jindal Saw Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2758/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…‘Purpose Test’ qua the incentive scheme is the relevant consideration and not the manner of determining the incentive. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd reported in 306 ITR 392 (SC). We find that the ld AR before us relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITA Nos. 2758 & 2759/Del/2015 ITA Nos. 3016 & 3017/Del/2015 Jindal Saw Ltd SAL Steel Limited vs Union of India reported in Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2008 and 5909,6300,6298,5907,8468,6334 and 6562 of 2008 dated 18.3.2010. In our…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Pvr Ltd

ITA/113/2025HC Delhi29 Apr 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 260A

…amount of ETS collected on sale of cinema tickets towards subsidy limited to particular amount in particular years. The case of assessee is that based on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals reported in [2008] 306 ITR 392 as in AY 2006-07 & 2007-08, in this year also the assessee claimed the said amount of ETS of Rs.16,73,37,497/-forming part of its total turnover as capital receipt not liable to tax. In AY 2006-07 ETS involved was in respect of one Multiplex involving E tax subsidy scheme in the state of Uttar Pradesh and in AY 2007-08 ETS involved was in respect…

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4535/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR

Section 2(24)Section 80I

…employment generation by the company connected to the export of goods and mercantile. It is linked with capital in nature. The CIT(A)has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. Ponni Sugars& Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.47/MDS/2016 dated 17.05.2016 and Sutlej Textiles & Industries Ltd. (ITA. No. 5142/Del/2013) and M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA.No. 687/Kol/2010. These issues have duly been examined and discussed by CIT(A) in his order. The copy of scheme has also been filed by Id. Repre…

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4534/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR

Section 2(24)Section 80I

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4533/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR

Section 2(24)Section 80I

Telangana State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 554/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA T Rajendra Prasad And Shri M Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 68

…of the Act. Therefore, by following certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., vs., CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT, Madras vs., M/s. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC), rejected 10 ITA.No.554/Hyd./2024 the explanation of assessee and grant received from Government of Telangana amounting to Rs.150 crores has been treated as ‘Income’ of the assessee. 8. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the Government Orders issued on various dates submitted that, the entire programme in both rural and urban ar…

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

…ived in the instant case would only have to be construed as capital receipts not chargeable to income tax. In this regard, we find that ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., reported in 306 ITR 392, wherein the incentive conferred under that scheme were two fold. First, in the nature of higher free sale sugar quota and Assessment Years: 2006-2007 second, in allowing the manufacturer to collect Excise duty on sale price on the free sale sugar in excess of the normal quota, but to pay to the Government only the Excise duty payable on the pric…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7296/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7296/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2004-05 बनाम Jindal Saw Ltd., Dcit (Formerly Known As Saw Pipes Ltd.) Vs. Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, C.R. Building, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aabcs7280C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…'Purpose Test' qua the incentive scheme is the relevant consideration and not the manner of determining the incentive. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd reported in 306 ITR 392 (SC). We find that the Id AR before us relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SAL Steel Limited vs Union of India reported in Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2008 and 5909, 6300, 6298, 5907, 8468, 6334 and 6562 of 2008 dated 18.3.2010. In our considered opinion, this decision relied by the Id. AR clearly brings…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…sidy: Rs.3,17,62,359/- The cases relied by the assessee and endorsed by the CIT(A) of the following cases are not applicable in this case. The facts of the following cases are different from the facts of this case. i) CIT Vs.Ponnis Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (306 ITR 392(SC)) ii) CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.(339 ITR 0632(Bom HC)) iii)CIT Vs.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(ITA No.1927/Del/2010-ITAT-Delhi iv) CIT Vs. Meghala Steels Ltd v)Shree Balaji Alloys Vs.CIT(2011) 333 ITR 335(J&K) 4.1) Further the Commissioner(Appeals) erred by endorsing the inference of the assessee a that the subsidy is of capital nature based…

Jt.Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Satara vs. Kute Sons Dairys Limited, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 226/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(1)

…analyzing the facts found that since the grant-in-aid was only for specific purpose of construction of Cinema Halls in the rural areas, it could not be termed as revenue receipt. 15. Similarly, in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 87/306 ITR 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "14. In our view, the controversy in hand can be resolved if we apply the test laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (supra). In that case, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that the subsidy given was up to 10% of the 10 ITA.No.226/PU…

Shree Chandi Maa Mahakali Prachin Mandir Sidh Peeth Samiti, Sonipat vs. CPC, Banglore

ITA 4791/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 92C

…e return of income on 30.10.2002. This return of income filed by the assessee was processed and thereafter selected for scrutiny u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ponni Sugar reported in 306 ITR 392. The assessee has filed an additional ground before the ld. CIT(A) and claimed that the assessee is entitled for the sales tax incentives and the receipts of sales tax incentives are capital receipts not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act. The assessee further argued that these incentives were provided for making investment in the state…

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prism Johnson Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5685/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 5685/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R

…02 Crores, availed during the year under consideration and treated as a capital receipt. The assessee claimed the said subsidy as capital receipt applying the purpose test laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd and Others vs.- CIT (1997) 228 /TR 253 (SC), which did not find favour with the AO who was of the opinion that receipt of sales tax subsidy after the commencement of production, clearly provides a running support to the assessee to run the unit, therefore, has to be treated as a revenue receipt. 4.1. Inso…

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7445/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM ITA No. 735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT-3(1)(1) M/s. Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. Room No. 607, 6th Floor, (Formerly Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 & Industries Ltd.) Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Vs. Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACB 4351 J (Revenue) : (Assessee) ITA No. 788/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. ACIT-3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor, 4th Floor, 628, Aaykar Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg,…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &