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.

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)

…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…

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)

…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…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…n accordance with the decision of Special Bench. It was specifically submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Special Bench stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide judgment reported as CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 and on further appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7769 of 2011 merely set aside the order of Bombay High Court and directed High Court to consider the matter on merits but such a finding does not overrule or set- aside the decision of Special Bench which continues to be operating and binding. He further also drew our attention t…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…n accordance with the decision of Special Bench. It was specifically submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Special Bench stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide judgment reported as CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 and on further appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7769 of 2011 merely set aside the order of Bombay High Court and directed High Court to consider the matter on merits but such a finding does not overrule or set- aside the decision of Special Bench which continues to be operating and binding. He further also drew our attention t…

Mazagon Dock Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5577/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5034/Mum/ 2011 No.5033/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2007-08)

Section 43B

…mpanies will not attract disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as held by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014)(65 SOT 86). He further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case reported in 339 ITR 632 that the disallowance u/s 14A is not called for when the assessee did not incur any expenditure at all. 6 5 03 3 / M/ 2 01 1 an d si x a p p ea ls 12. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer himself has restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of the investment in AY 2009-10 and 2012-13. 13. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that…

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mazgaon Dock Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5034/Mum/ 2011 No.5033/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2007-08)

Section 43B

…mpanies will not attract disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as held by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014)(65 SOT 86). He further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case reported in 339 ITR 632 that the disallowance u/s 14A is not called for when the assessee did not incur any expenditure at all. 6 5 03 3 / M/ 2 01 1 an d si x a p p ea ls 12. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer himself has restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of the investment in AY 2009-10 and 2012-13. 13. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that…

Mazgaon Dock Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1234/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5034/Mum/ 2011 No.5033/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2007-08)

Section 43B

…mpanies will not attract disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as held by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014)(65 SOT 86). He further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case reported in 339 ITR 632 that the disallowance u/s 14A is not called for when the assessee did not incur any expenditure at all. 6 5 03 3 / M/ 2 01 1 an d si x a p p ea ls 12. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer himself has restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of the investment in AY 2009-10 and 2012-13. 13. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that…

Mazgaon Dock Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1233/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5034/Mum/ 2011 No.5033/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2007-08)

Section 43B

…mpanies will not attract disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as held by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014)(65 SOT 86). He further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case reported in 339 ITR 632 that the disallowance u/s 14A is not called for when the assessee did not incur any expenditure at all. 6 5 03 3 / M/ 2 01 1 an d si x a p p ea ls 12. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer himself has restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of the investment in AY 2009-10 and 2012-13. 13. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that…

Mazgaon Dock Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5034/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5034/Mum/ 2011 No.5033/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2007-08)

Section 43B

…mpanies will not attract disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as held by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014)(65 SOT 86). He further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case reported in 339 ITR 632 that the disallowance u/s 14A is not called for when the assessee did not incur any expenditure at all. 6 5 03 3 / M/ 2 01 1 an d si x a p p ea ls 12. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer himself has restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of the investment in AY 2009-10 and 2012-13. 13. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that…

Mazgaon Dock Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5033/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5034/Mum/ 2011 No.5033/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2007-08)

Section 43B

…mpanies will not attract disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as held by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014)(65 SOT 86). He further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case reported in 339 ITR 632 that the disallowance u/s 14A is not called for when the assessee did not incur any expenditure at all. 6 5 03 3 / M/ 2 01 1 an d si x a p p ea ls 12. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer himself has restricted the disallowance to 0.5% of the investment in AY 2009-10 and 2012-13. 13. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that…

Klj Resources Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 199/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

Section 14A

…isions:- i) CIT vs HDFC Bank reported in (2014) 89 CCH 185 (Bom) I.T.A. No.199/D/2014 ii) Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT reported in 274 ITR 272 (Del) iii) CIT vs Hero Cycles Ltd. reported in 323 ITR 74 (P&H) iv) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., reported in 339 ITR 632 (Bom) v) CIT vs. Metalman Auto P.Ltd., reported in 336 ITR 434 (P&H) vi) CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd., reported in 363 ITR 474 ( Guj) 5. On the contrary, ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly initiated section 14A of the Act and, after recording the satisfaction, has made the addition to the extent of Rs.1,41,206/-. Learned DR su…

Deepak Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 4188/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.K.Billaiya & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4187/M/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Devesh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O. M/S. Ravi & Dev, Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Chartered Accountants, 32 377-B, First Floor, Mumbai. Jagannath Shankar Seth Marg, Chira Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aekpa7464G

For Appellant: Shri Devendra A. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 14ASection 69B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“डी” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4187/M/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Devesh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ C/o. M/s. Ravi & Dev, Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Chartered Accountants, 32 377-B, First Floor, Mumbai. Jagannath Shankar Seth Marg, Chira Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEKPA7464G आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4188/M/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Deepak Agarwal Ass…

Devesh Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 4187/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.K.Billaiya & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4187/M/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Devesh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O. M/S. Ravi & Dev, Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Chartered Accountants, 32 377-B, First Floor, Mumbai. Jagannath Shankar Seth Marg, Chira Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aekpa7464G

For Appellant: Shri Devendra A. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 14ASection 69B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“डी” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4187/M/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Devesh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ C/o. M/s. Ravi & Dev, Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Chartered Accountants, 32 377-B, First Floor, Mumbai. Jagannath Shankar Seth Marg, Chira Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEKPA7464G आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4188/M/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Deepak Agarwal Ass…

Uni Deritend Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Unideritend Limited, The Additional Commissioner Libery Building, Of Income Tax, Range – 1(3), Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, Vs. Room No.564, Mumbai – 400 020 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacu 0028K M.K. Road, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Santosh Mankoskar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2015

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Mankoskar, D.R
Section 4Section 41(1)Section 50

…us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.” (2011) 339 ITR 632 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.” (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), has held that if the object of the subsidy was to set up a new unit in a backward area to generate employment therein, then the subsidy was to be treated on ca…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3703/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…ived by the assessee was directly linked with the running and operation of the business, that it was revenue receipt.Finally, he confirmed the order of the AO. 8.2.During the course of hearing before us the AR relied upon the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (339 ITR 632); Birla XVL Ltd.(215 Taxmann 117);Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.(Civil Appeal No.5694 of 2008).The DR supported the order of the FAA. 8.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee during the assessment proceedings had made the claim about sales tax exemption, relying upon the decision of Rel…

Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 3634/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…ived by the assessee was directly linked with the running and operation of the business, that it was revenue receipt.Finally, he confirmed the order of the AO. 8.2.During the course of hearing before us the AR relied upon the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (339 ITR 632); Birla XVL Ltd.(215 Taxmann 117);Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.(Civil Appeal No.5694 of 2008).The DR supported the order of the FAA. 8.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee during the assessment proceedings had made the claim about sales tax exemption, relying upon the decision of Rel…

Supreme Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 8592/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Supreme Enterprises, Addl. Cit 2(3), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Regent Chamber, Vs. M.K. Road, 208, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs 7716D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri S.M. Agrawal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Rai, (Inspector O & It ) On Behalf Of Sr. A.R. Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Rai, (Inspector O & IT ) on behalf of Sr. A.R. Shri Neil Philip, D.
Section 80Section 801A(4)(iv)Section 80ISection 80i

…en the future liability and the present discounted value as income of the assessee. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.” (2011) 339 ITR 632 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.” (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), has held that if the object of the subsidy was to set up a new unit in a backward area to generate employment therein, then the subsidy was to be treated on ca…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd

ITA/115/2014HC Delhi25 Nov 2014
Section 14ASection 260A

…of the interest expenditure was incurred directly attributable to the business purpose. No part of the borrowed funds has been utilized by the assessee for making investment in mutual funds." 14.2 The AR relied on the following case laws: • Sushma Kapoor 319 ITR 299 (Del.) • DCIT vs. Maruti udyog Ltd. 92 ITJ 987 (Del.) • Voltas Ltd. 125 ITJ 601 (Mum.) (Trb.) • Dishman Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT 45 SOT 37 (Ahd) (URO) 15. I have gone through the assessment order and the detailed written submissions. The AO worked out disallowance of Rs. 5,36,393/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The AR has explained that no b…