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.

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Wonder Cement Ltd, Madanganj-Kishangarh

In the result Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1543/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. C. M. Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801A(8)Section 80A(6)Section 92Section 92CSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1543/JPR/2024(A. Y. 2020-21) ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer ...... Appellant Vs. Wonder Cement Limited, Makrana Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh-305801 PAN No. AAACW6009L …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. C. M. Agarwal, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 11/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), Jaipur-5 dated 14.10.2…

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

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

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

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 PAN-AADCA9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/CHNY/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.3157/CHNY2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/s Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Tr…

Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1488/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1488/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Orient Paper & Industries Limited,…..……Appellant 13th Floor, Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, BBD Bag, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AAACO3279J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,……Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, FCA, Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA and Ms. Vidhi Lexlia, AR, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Prave…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.177/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Economic Explosives Ltd. 11, Zade Layout, Bharat Nagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 033 PAN – AAACE3871C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–1(2), Nagpur ITA no.242/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) Economic Explosives Ltd. 11, Zade Layout, Bharat Nagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 033 PAN – AAACE3871C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–1, Nagpur Assessee…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.177/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Economic Explosives Ltd. 11, Zade Layout, Bharat Nagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 033 PAN – AAACE3871C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–1(2), Nagpur ITA no.242/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) Economic Explosives Ltd. 11, Zade Layout, Bharat Nagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 033 PAN – AAACE3871C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–1, Nagpur Assessee…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…ORDER 2 ITA Nos. 1496 & 1420/Mum/2007 M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These cross appeals by Assessee and Revenue are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) – XXVII, Mumbai dated 29.11.2006 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') for A.Y. 2003-04 respectively. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1420/Mum/2007 for Α.Υ. 2003-04: - 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow 1/10th deduction amounting to Rs. 1,17,19,960/- u/s. 35D of the Act in respect of expenditure incu…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3093/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w SamkitFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80Section 80ISection 92Section 92B

…the rate of power at each electricity board supplied power to its customers. He further referred to the decision of another Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITA No.468/Mum/2022 M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 12 Reliance Industries Ltd., reported in 421 ITR 686 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, if assessee had set up a captive power generating unit and provided electricity to its another unit and claimed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of profits arising out of such activity then the valuation of electricity provided to another unit should be at rate at which electricity distribu…

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 688/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. SJLT Textiles, 2E, 2nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [PAN: AAICS2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl…

Incometax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles, Chennai

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

ITA 687/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. SJLT Textiles, 2E, 2nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [PAN: AAICS2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl…

Incometax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles, Chennai

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

ITA 686/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. SJLT Textiles, 2E, 2nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [PAN: AAICS2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Rungta Mines Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 802/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

…he price charged by the Board. There is no illegality in their orders. 35. In view of above, the question is decided against the Department and in favour of the Assessee. The tax appeals have no merit. They are dismissed.” (B) CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (421 ITR 686) (Bom HC) 4. Question (c) pertains to the dispute between the department and the assessee regarding the rate at which the electricity generated by one unit of the assessee- company and provided to the another be valued. The assessee contended that such valuation should be at the rate at which the electricity distribution companies are allowed to…

DCIT CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Rungta Mines Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 801/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

…he price charged by the Board. There is no illegality in their orders. 35. In view of above, the question is decided against the Department and in favour of the Assessee. The tax appeals have no merit. They are dismissed.” (B) CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (421 ITR 686) (Bom HC) 4. Question (c) pertains to the dispute between the department and the assessee regarding the rate at which the electricity generated by one unit of the assessee- company and provided to the another be valued. The assessee contended that such valuation should be at the rate at which the electricity distribution companies are allowed to…

DCIT, Kol., Kolkata vs. Rungta Mines Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 286/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.286/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit, Kolkata.................................................................................Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd.................................................……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Raman Garg, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That Arm'S Length Price & Fair Market Value Are Two Different Concepts & The Role Of The Tpo Is Limited To Determination Of Arm'S Length Price

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92F

…he price charged by the Board. There is no illegality in their orders. 35. In view of above, the question is decided against the Department and in favour of the Assessee. The tax appeals have no merit. They are dismissed.” (B) CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (421 ITR 686) (Bom HC) 4. Question (c) pertains to the dispute between the department and the assessee regarding the rate at which the electricity generated by one unit of the assessee- company and provided to the another be valued. The assessee contended that such valuation should be at the rate at which the electricity distribution companies are allowed to…

Ganesh Gupta, Wani vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR CIT
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING At ITAT :Pune Bench BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.54/NAG./2021 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Shri Ganesh Gupta, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2, Saraf Rudhra Sales, Chikhalgain, Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. Wani – 445 304 vs Maharashtra. State of Maharashtra. PIN 440 001 PAN ABGPG6048Q Appellant Respondent For Assessee : Shri Mahavir Atal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR CIT Date of Hearing : 22.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.20…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…othing but the price charged on the power supply by Gujarat Electricity Board on the assessee. We find that this issue is no longer res integra by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd reported in 421 ITR 686 (Bom). The relevant question raised before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is reproduced as under:- (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the ld.CIT(A) who had deleted the addition made by the then AO by restricting the deduction u/s. 80IA at Rs. 48…

Sharda Ispat Limited, Nagpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 69/NAG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 43(1)

…capital assets. The CIT(A) incorrectly confirmed the view of AO in considering the said special capital incentive for the purpose of depreciation. She referred to gist of the submissions and placed reliance in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 339 ITR 632 (Bombay) and prayed to delete the addition as confirmed by the CIT(A). The ld. DR relied on the orders of both the authorities below. 4. Heard ld. AR and ld. DR, we note that the AO disallowed depreciation in terms of proviso to Explanation 10 of section 43(1) of the Act which is evident from para 4 of the assessment order. The CIT(A) also by re…

M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT2(3) (1) -, Mumbai

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

ITA 468/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 80

…at the rate at which manufacturing unit of the assessee has been purchasing the electricity from State Electricity Board. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., reported in (2020) 421 ITR 686, wherein Hon‟ble High Court on similar issue and on similar lines held that valuation of electricity provided to another unit should be at the rate at which electricity distribution companies are allowed to supply electricity to the consumers. 5 M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 5. However, TPO held that, the assessee has transferred / sold the power fro…

Star Paper Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 424/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Star Paper Mills Ltd. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Duncan House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/06/2022, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Which Is Arising Out Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dt. 29/04/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ao/Tpo In Complete Disregard Of The Binding Precedent In Assessee'S Own Case For 2

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92B

…the price charged by the Board. There is no illegality in their orders. 35. In view of above, the question is decided against the Department and in favour of the Assessee. The tax appeals have no merit. They are dismissed.” (B) CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (421 ITR 686) (Bom HC) 4. Question (c) pertains to the dispute between the department and the assessee regarding the rate at which the electricity generated by one unit of the assessee- company and provided to the another be valued. The assessee contended that such valuation should be at the rate at which the electricity distribution companies are allowed to…

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…2010 is concerned, wherein the CIT (A), after discussing the evidence has held in favour of the department. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 218/[2011] 339 ITR 632, wherein it is held that object of subsidy being to set up new units in backward area is a capital receipt and another decision of High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Chhindwara Fuels [2001] 114 Taxman 707/[2000] 245 ITR 9, wherein it is held that subsidy in the form of refund of sales-tax received after commencement of production cannot…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…2010 is concerned, wherein the CIT (A), after discussing the evidence has held in favour of the department. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 218/[2011] 339 ITR 632, wherein it is held that object of subsidy being to set up new units in backward area is a capital receipt and another decision of High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Chhindwara Fuels [2001] 114 Taxman 707/[2000] 245 ITR 9, wherein it is held that subsidy in the form of refund of sales-tax received after commencement of production cannot…