CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

339 ITR 632High Court2011#411 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. authority for?

No substantial question of law arises regarding a subsidy granted for setting up a new industrial unit in a backward area for employment generation, as held by the Bombay High Court. This decision was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court.

218

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. · 339 ITR 632 · Bombay High Court · subsidy for new industrial unit · backward area development · employment generation · section 80IA · tax treatment of subsidy · no substantial question of law · Supreme Court remand

Also reported as

102 Taxmann.com 372228 Taxmann 184

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 80IASection 14ASection 143(3)Section 80IA(8)Section 80IBSection 92CA(3)Section 234D

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 92f(ii)section 80ia(8)section 28(iv)section 92fcorporate guaranteesection 80hhcdeduction under section 80iasection 80hhsection 115jb(2)deduction u/s 80iasection 10(34)

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…bmitted, the aforesaid Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, was subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Industries 30 Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Ltd., [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom.). He submitted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) and CIT v/s Chaphalkar Brothers, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178 have also expressed similar view. He submitted, the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court were delivered not only after the…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7092/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…bmitted, the aforesaid Special Bench decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, was subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Industries 30 Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Ltd., [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom.). He submitted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) and CIT v/s Chaphalkar Brothers, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178 have also expressed similar view. He submitted, the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court were delivered not only after the…

DCIT -1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Lockheed Martinaerostructures Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2667/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin,DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…igh Court) (c) Swapna Murarka vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 369 (Mumbai - Tribunal) I.T.A. No.2667/Mum/2016 (d) CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited (2009) 310 ITR 421 (Bom) [Affirmed in 326 ITR I (SC)] (e) CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom) (f) CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 434 (P&H) (g) CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (h) CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (i) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd, 328 ITR 81 (Bombay High Court) (j) Wimco Seedlings Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 107 ITD 267 (Del) (TM) (k) Relaxo Footwears Ltd.,V. ACIT (…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Universal Construction Machinery & Equipments Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2312/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Gautam

…re Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported as 339 ITR 632, wherein subsidy sanctioned to the assessee under similar Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 was held to be capital in nature. The ld. DR has failed to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the absence of any contrary material on record, we uphold the findings of First Appellate Authority in deleting the addition in…

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svg Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 704/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: None
Section 2(24)(x)

…s Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253) iv. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) v. M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. Vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) vi. CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 351 ITR 309 (Bombay High Court) vii. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bombay High Court) After going through the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the ratio of issue in the present case is similar to that of Chaphalkar Brothers wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, has pronounced that the subsidy provided by the government to the assessee was in the nature of capita…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Abhay Cotex Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1423/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul & Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 115JSection 32

…d had also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals (306 ITR) 392, Sasisri Extraction Ltd. Vs. ACIT (307 ITR AT.127), Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (031 ITR Trib. 513), CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (339 ITR 632), CIT Vs. Rasoi Ltd. (335 ITR 438), Indo Rama Synthetic Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2002/Del/2008 for AY 2003-04 and Inventaa Chemical Ltd. Vs. ACIT (42 SOT 249). The scheme was intended to accelerate industrial development of the State and the incentive was given for setting up of industries in Maharashtra. The amount of subsidy to be given was dete…

M/S. Shandar Interiors Pvt. Ld., Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax : 3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 910/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT

…subsidy aimed at generation of employment in the backward areas of the State. Therefore, the same constitute a Capital Receipt which is not a taxable receipt. Further, relying on the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom.), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration stands covered in favour of the assessee. Further also, Ld. Counsel submitted that there is some confusion in appreciation of facts by the income-tax authorities with regard to the facts, figures and the purpose of subsidy. Referring to the cited jurisdictional H…

Bala Reddy Gopu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 455/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 14ASection 17(1)(iv)Section 192Section 194HSection 44A

…(2010) 323 ITR 518 (P &H) 8 I.T.A. Nos. 455 & 456/Hyd/2017 Bala Reddy G "For the purpose of making disallowance u/ s 14A, a finding of incurring the expenditure for earning exempt income is absolutely necessarily. " • CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (2011) 339 ITR 632 (Bom.) "Dividend income is statutory exempt and in the absence of any expenditure shown for earning dividend income, disallowance under section-14A was not justified. " • Gujarat High Court in the case of 01' us. Gujarai Power Ltd. Reported in 352 ITR 583 wherein it is held that "where the company was using its own funds for investment in share…

Tata Lokheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT - 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 2144/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2144/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati VisanjiFor Respondent: Sh. M. V. Rajguru
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…0) 188 Taxman 70 (Delhi High Court) (c) Swapna Murarka vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 369 (Mumbai - Tribunal) (d) CIT v. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited (2009) 310 ITR 421 (Born) [Affirmed in 326 ITR I (SC)] (e) CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Born) (f) CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 434 (P&H) (g) CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (h) CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. 319 hR 204 (P&H) (i) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd, 328 ITR 81 (Bombay High Court) (j) Wimco Seedlings Ltd. v. DCIT (2007) 107 lTD 267 (De) (TM) (k) Relaxo Footwears Ltd.,V. ACIT (2…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…ities and Power Ltd.: 313 ITR 340 (Bom) , CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.: 363 ITR 474 (Guj). ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.3. Reference can also be made to the decisions in Chemical & Mettallurgical Design Co. Ltd : ITA No. 803/2008 (Delhi), CIT Vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor : 319 ITR 299 (Delhi), ACIT v. Eicher Limited: 101 TTJ 369 (Del.) , Maruti Udyog Limited V. DCIT: 92 ITD 119 (Del.), on the aspect of section 14A of the Act, wherein it has been held that without any cogent basis and material on record, no artificial/ ad-hoc disallowance is permissible for expenses incurred by the assessee, and the legal position that emerges…

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)

…is the 'purpose' of the scheme which is of fundamental importance in determining the nature of the subsidy as 'revenue' or 'capital'. This decision of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom.). 29. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), after considering the decision in Sahney Steel (supra) held that 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 and that if…

M/S. Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5566/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5566/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/46A, West Punujabi Bagh, Ward-13(4), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac)4250B Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Ca & Sh. P. K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvi, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 5566/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/s Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 10/46A, West Punujabi Bagh, Ward-13(4), New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAC)4250B Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, CA & Sh. P. K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.07.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XVI, Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in th…

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 390/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A Nos. 388 to 390/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. Central Circle-XXVII, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCB2880M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 02.01.2017 Date of pronouncement: 18.01.2017 For the Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR For the Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA ORDER Per Bench : The captioned three appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, are direc…

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 389/KOL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A Nos. 388 to 390/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. Central Circle-XXVII, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCB2880M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 02.01.2017 Date of pronouncement: 18.01.2017 For the Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR For the Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA ORDER Per Bench : The captioned three appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, are direc…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A Nos. 388 to 390/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. Central Circle-XXVII, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCB2880M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 02.01.2017 Date of pronouncement: 18.01.2017 For the Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR For the Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA ORDER Per Bench : The captioned three appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, are direc…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…odrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) " Chemical & Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 803/2008 (Del.) " CIT Vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor 319 ITR 299 (Del) " CIT Vs Metalman Auto P. Ltd. 336 ITR 434 (P&H) " CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom) " CIT Vs Torrent Power Ltd. 363 ITR 474 (Guj.) " Maxpax Investment Ltd. Vs ACIT 104 TTJ 881 (Del. Trib.) " ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. 101 TTJ 369 (Del.) " Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del.) " Wimco Seedlings Ltd. Vs DCIT 107 ITD 267 (Del.) ™ " DLF Ltd. Vs CIT 27 SOT 22 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTJ 228 (Del.) " Impulse ((…

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

…odrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) " Chemical & Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 803/2008 (Del.) " CIT Vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor 319 ITR 299 (Del) " CIT Vs Metalman Auto P. Ltd. 336 ITR 434 (P&H) " CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom) " CIT Vs Torrent Power Ltd. 363 ITR 474 (Guj.) " Maxpax Investment Ltd. Vs ACIT 104 TTJ 881 (Del. Trib.) " ACIT Vs Eicher Ltd. 101 TTJ 369 (Del.) " Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs DCIT 92 ITD 119 (Del.) " Wimco Seedlings Ltd. Vs DCIT 107 ITD 267 (Del.) ™ " DLF Ltd. Vs CIT 27 SOT 22 (Del.) " ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTJ 228 (Del.) " Impulse ((…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND 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 D…

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)

…4.10 The issue is also covered in favour of assessee by the following orders :- (a) CIT v. National Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd.: 254 ITR 599 (Del) (b) DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd: (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB) affirmed by the Bombay High Court in 339 ITR 632 (c) CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Mum.) (d) CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd: 364 ITR 88 (Mum) (e) CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal in ITA: 472 of 2010 (P&H) (f) CIT v. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.) (g) 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…

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)

…al Nos. 65& 68 (Asr.) of 2010) 140 ITD 1, held that excise duty refund is to be treated as capital receipt. 3. CIT vs. Rasoli ltd. [2011J 245 CTR. 667 (Cal High Court) - Sales Tax subsidy received is capital receipt. 4. CIT vs. Reliance Industries lid. [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom. High Court) Sales Tax Incentive was a capital receipt.” 5 ITA No.6696,6697 &6698/M/14 (A.Y. 2009-12) M/s. Man Industries India. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 5. However, the AO did not convince with the assessee‟s reply and held as under: 1. All the Incentives are production Incentives in the sense that the company will be entitled to these incentives o…