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.

The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1716/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N K Pradhan, Am The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar Pan No.Aaact2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

Section 144C(5)

…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 41 The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Limited (A.Y:2012-13) 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…

DCIT Cir 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5584/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountnat Member & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-4(2)(2), M/S Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, 207, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400002 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaach2831H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desai (AR)
Section 253Section 254(1)

…as capital in nature by relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 208, CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars And Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 (CAL), the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Tripti Menthol Industries 35 taxmann.com 515 (Gujarat) and the decision of the J&K High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT 333 ITR 335 (J&K). 3.3 We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the subsidy scheme formulat…

DCIT, CC-Xvi, Kolkata vs. South Asian Petrochem Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)

…he manufacture of “Bottle Grade Polyester Chips with a capacity of 140000 tonnes”. Therefore the subsidy was given to assessee for the establishment of new industrial unit. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rasoi Limited reported in 335 ITR 438 (Cal) has held that the Sales Tax Incentive granted by the West Bengal Government to the assessee with the object to a provide incentive to set up new industrial undertaking or substantial expansion of the existing undertakings was capital receipt and not revenue in nature. The relevant extract of the judgment is extracted below:- ITA No.1222-12…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…uring the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vis-à-vis decision of the Special Bench in case of Reliance Industries Ltd., 88 ITD 273, Shree Balaji Alloys Ltd., 138 DTR 36(SC), Rasoi Ltd., 335 ITR 438(CAL), Bougainvillea Multiples Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd., 373 ITR 014(Delhi), Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88 (Bom) and Associated Cement Cos. Ltd., ITA No.7594 & 7644/M/04, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for treating the same as capital receipt. Accordingly ground no.1 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. 14. The a…

ACIT, CC-Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Navin Verma & Nitin Agarwal, ARs
Section 143(3)

…ated as capital in nature. He heavily relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Limited reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) . He also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd reported in (2006) 101 TTJ 224 (Ahm) . 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the subsidy scheme and the agreement entered into by the assessee…

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…Ltd. (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. Reference was also made to the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT - - Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) wherein it has been held that subsidy received for expansion of capacities, modernization and improving the marketing capabilities to tide over the crises for promotion of industry in the state is to be treated as capital in nature. Reference was also made to the following other decisions in the case of Shree Halaji Alloys & Ors. -vs.- CIT…

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 602/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCA

…Coming to the aforesaid conclusion the CIT(A) apart from relying on several judicial pronouncements placed reliance on the ITA No.602/Kol/2014-M/s. Shyam Steel Inds. Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 3 decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 (Cal). In the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of West Bengal was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the subsidy was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The CIT(A) following the aforesaid decision was…

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

…as 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 expansion of capacities, modernization and improving the marketing capabilities to tide over the crises for promotion of industry in the state is to be treated as capital in nature. That similarly, the issue is covered in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. –vs.- CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K…

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)

…its or for substantial expansion of an existing unit. The subsidy received by the assessee was not in the course of a trade but was of a capital nature.” 7.2. We also find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) had held as under:- “If the object of a subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably the receipt is on revenue account. On the other hand, if the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit, the receipt of the subsidy is on…

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)

…its or for substantial expansion of an existing unit. The subsidy received by the assessee was not in the course of a trade but was of a capital nature.” 7.2. We also find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) had held as under:- “If the object of a subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably the receipt is on revenue account. On the other hand, if the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit, the receipt of the subsidy is on…

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)

…ments, 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 subsidy may kindly be directed to be credited to the c…

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)

…ments, 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 subsidy may kindly be directed to be credited to the c…

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)

…ments, 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 subsidy may kindly be directed to be credited to the c…

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)

…DCIT v. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.) (h) DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) (i) CIT v. Samta Chavigarh: ITA No. 144 of 2007 (Raj)/ 222 Taxman 205 (Mag.) (j) CIT v. Udupi Builders P. Ltd.319 ITR 440 (Kar) (k) CIT v. Rasoi Ltd : 335 ITR 438 (Cal.) (l) PVR Limited v. ACIT: ITA No. 1897/ Del/ 2010 (Del ITAT) (m)Honda Siel Cars India Ltd : ITA No.5577/ D/ 2004 (Del. ITAT) (n) Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd v DCIT : 91 TTJ 108 (Del. ITAT) (o) DCIT v. Indo Rama Textiles Ltd : 53 SOT 515 (Del. ITAT) (p) PVR Limited V. ACIT: ITA No.1897/ Del/ 2010 (Del. ITAT) (q) Zenith Fibres Ltd v ITO : ITA…

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)

…d has refused to follow this judgement. One of the reasons given by the Assessing Office not to follow the judgement of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court was that the SLP against this judgment is pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 15. In the case of Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 (Cal), Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.; 306 ITR 392 (SC), held that the subsidy by way of sales tax incentive for expansion of capacity, modernization and improving marketing capacity is receipt on capital account and not income. 15.1 ITAT Special…

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

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

ITA 6697/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

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)

…d has refused to follow this judgement. One of the reasons given by the Assessing Office not to follow the judgement of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court was that the SLP against this judgment is pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 15. In the case of Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 (Cal), Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.; 306 ITR 392 (SC), held that the subsidy by way of sales tax incentive for expansion of capacity, modernization and improving marketing capacity is receipt on capital account and not income. 15.1 ITAT Special…

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

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

ITA 6696/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

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)

…d has refused to follow this judgement. One of the reasons given by the Assessing Office not to follow the judgement of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court was that the SLP against this judgment is pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 15. In the case of Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 (Cal), Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.; 306 ITR 392 (SC), held that the subsidy by way of sales tax incentive for expansion of capacity, modernization and improving marketing capacity is receipt on capital account and not income. 15.1 ITAT Special…

DCIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5675/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5675/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Harinagar Sugar Mills बनाम/ Tax - 4(2), Ltd., V. Room No. 642, 6 Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Centre No. 1, M.K. Road, 10 Th Floor, Mumbai 400 020. Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai- 400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaach2831H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desai
Section 143(3)

…as capital in nature by relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 208, CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars And Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasoi Ltd. 335 ITR 438 (CAL), the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Tripti Menthol Industries 35 taxmann.com 515 (Gujarat) and the decision of the J&K High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT 333 ITR 335 (J&K). 3.3 We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the subsidy scheme formula…

D.C.I.T, Cir-3 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Barjora Steel & Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1517/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1517/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: David Z.Chowngthu, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ashoke Mukherjee, FCA

…subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. 10. It would also be of immense merit to refer to another judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case titled Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rasoi Limited [2011] 335 ITR 438, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Court by making a due reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd [2008] 174 Taxman 87 (SC) that one time subsidy received as a percentage of sales tax paid for modernization and expansion purposes would constitute a ca…

ACIT, Circle-3, Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metalics Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 956/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…e and brought the same to tax in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rasoi Limited reported in 335 ITR 438, wherein it was held that sales tax incentive received by the assessee under West Bengal Incentive Scheme for expansion of capacity, modernisation and improving the marketing capabilities to tide over the crisis for promotion of industry in the State was capital in nature. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assess…