CIT v. Rasoi Ltd.

335 ITR 438High Court2011#1012 most cited

What is CIT v. Rasoi Ltd. authority for?

Sales tax subsidies and Industrial Promotion Assistance received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme are capital receipts and therefore not liable to tax. The ruling clarifies the inapplicability of the Sahney Steel judgment to such subsidies.

107

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rasoi Ltd. · CIT v. Rasoi Ltd. · capital receipt · sales tax subsidy · Industrial Promotion Assistance · West Bengal Incentive Scheme · subsidy taxability · not liable to tax · Sahney Steel judgment · Section 2(24)

Also reported as

46 Taxmann.com 214

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 62section 80ia(8)section 43abook profitsspecified domestic transactionsection 139(5)transfer of capital assetsection 21section 115jdeduction u/s 80iaintangible assetssection 40a(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rasoi Ltd.

ACIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Britannia Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2644/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R and Shri G
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…held in favour of assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune [2018] 400 ITR 279 as well as that of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Limited [2011] 335 ITR 438 (Cal) (HC). 17.1. On going through the above, and judicial precedents referred in the impugned order and after perusal of the Industrial policies of the Governments of Bihar and Odisha, we find that firstly introduction of amendment in Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act is prospective in nature and applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17 and onward.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Raipur vs. Shri Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 201/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 201/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited, 00, Vill. Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Raipur-493221. Pan : Aaccb2944D ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…se. In view of above facts, the assessee company has rightly treated the subsidy as capital receipt. The assessee also relied upon the following case laws: - CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors.(2008) 306 ITR 392(SC) - CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. & Ors. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Calcutta) - CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2oo8) 306 ITR 392(SC) -Shree Balaji Alls & Ors. vs. CH & Ors.(2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) - CIT & ANR vs. Udupi Builders (P) Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 44o (Karnataka) - Sasisri Extraction Ltd. vs. ACIT 119 TTJ (Visakha) 976 -DCIT vs. Reliance Industries ltd. (2004) 82 TET (Mumbai) (SB) 765” Howe…

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

…vs.- Sh. Sham Lal Bansal (Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, ITA No. 472 of 2010)  PCIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [416 ITR 591 2019] Cal High Court  CIT vs.- Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)  CIT vs.- Rasoi Ltd. [(2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.)]  CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC)  DCIT vs.- Reliance Industries (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum.)(SB);  CIT vs. Birla VXL Lt d. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC);  Hydro Carbons & Chemicals vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982- 86/Kol/09);  Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT)…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3517/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(2), Vs. M/S Hikal Ltd Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 717/718, Maker Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers V, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0383A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.Cit Dr Respondent By : Sri.Sanjay Parikh.Ar Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.CIT DRFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Parikh.AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 154

…, i. e., Hikal Ltd.Mumbai. assessment year 2016- 17 has prospective effect and has no effect on the law on the subject applicable to the assessment years in question. CIT v. PONNI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) and CIT v. RASOI LTD. [2011] 335 ITR 438 (Cal) followed. (ii) That where a receipt was not in the nature of income it could not be included in the book profits for the purpose of computation under section 115JB. Therefore, the interest and the power subsidies received by the assessee under the Government schemes would have to be excluded while computing the book profits under section 11…

ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4485/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…d not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held the subsidy SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held th received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industria…

ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4484/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…d not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held the subsidy SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held th received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industria…

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, C--2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4293/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…d not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held the subsidy SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held th received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industria…

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, C--2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4291/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 115JSection 14A

…d not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (201.1) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held the subsidy SupremeCourt in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held th received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industria…

Greenlam Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

…CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune [2018] 252 Taxman 360 (SC). Reliance also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum)(SB). 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also stated that similar issue of whether excise duty exemptions are to be excluded for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, has recen…

The ACIT 4 (1), Indore vs. M/S Singnet Industries Ltd, Indore

In the result ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 357/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Tulsiya & Shri Kapil
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)

…sales tax subsidy). (c) CIT V/s Shree Balaji Alloys 138 DTR 0036 (SC). (In respect of excise duty refund and interest subsidy). (d) DCIT V/s Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. ITA 5675/Mum/2014. (In respect of reimbursement of VAT on molasses). (e) CIT V/s Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 Kolkatta. (In respect of refund / reimbursement of sales tax / VAT). (f) Decision of Honourable ITAT Kolkatta Bench in the case of Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. V/s DCIT dated 14.10.2016 I (Reimbursement of 75% sales tax / VAT paid). ITA No.357/Ind/2020 (ACIT vs. M/s. Singnet Industries Ltd.) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 5 - 6. The Ld. CIT(A) considering thi…

Shantinath Detergents Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 467/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amal Shudhir Kamat, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…ce to Industrial Units) Scheme, as Capital Receipt in place of Revenue Receipt. The Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the fact that the IPA received by the assessee is a capital receipt as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Rasoi Ltd in 335 ITR 438. Also, the same is held in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case in earlier and subsequent years in IT(SS)A No. 27 to 32/Ko/2019. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the claim of IPA as Capital Receipt is completely unjustified and the same needs to be allowed to the assessee. 3. That the assessee craves to leave or ad…

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

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

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

Section 14A

…urce thereof. not the modality or the source thereof. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the marketing cap…

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

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

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

Section 14A

…urce thereof. not the modality or the source thereof. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the marketing cap…

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

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

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

Section 14A

…urce thereof. not the modality or the source thereof. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the marketing cap…

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

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

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

Section 14A

…urce thereof. not the modality or the source thereof. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the marketing cap…

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

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

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

Section 14A

…urce thereof. not the modality or the source thereof. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. iv. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasol Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), has held that subsidy received for expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the expansion of capacities modernization and improving the marketing cap…

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…loyment in the State and that such incentives designed to achieve a public purpose, could not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of Supreme Court in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held that subsidy received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industrial promotion for expansion of its capacities, modernization and improving its marketing capabilities would be 'capital' receipt. 30. Further, the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') has issue…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3299/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…loyment in the State and that such incentives designed to achieve a public purpose, could not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of Supreme Court in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held that subsidy received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industrial promotion for expansion of its capacities, modernization and improving its marketing capabilities would be 'capital' receipt. 30. Further, the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') has issue…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…loyment in the State and that such incentives designed to achieve a public purpose, could not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of Supreme Court in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held that subsidy received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industrial promotion for expansion of its capacities, modernization and improving its marketing capabilities would be 'capital' receipt. 30. Further, the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') has issue…

ACIT, Circle - Tinsukia, Tinsukia vs. M/S. Greenply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…h Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & ors –vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K), judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited (335 ITR 438 (Cal.). Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Special Bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT –vs.- Reliance Industries Limited (2004) 88 ITD 273 (MUM)(SB), wherein it was held that where the object of the subsidy was to encourage the settling up of industries in the backward area and the incentive was not given…