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 366,314 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.

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 417/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…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 11 ITA NO.5655 & 5692/MUM/2011(A.Y: 2006-07) M/s. ACC Limited Taxman 707/[2000] 245 ITR 9, wherein it is held that subsidy in the form of refun…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…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…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…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…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5692/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…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 11 ITA NO.5655 & 5692/MUM/2011(A.Y: 2006-07) M/s. ACC Limited Taxman 707/[2000] 245 ITR 9, wherein it is held that subsidy in the form of refun…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5655/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…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 11 ITA NO.5655 & 5692/MUM/2011(A.Y: 2006-07) M/s. ACC Limited Taxman 707/[2000] 245 ITR 9, wherein it is held that subsidy in the form of refun…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3786/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…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…

Acc Ltd (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3490/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…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…

Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bharathi Cement Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr3079G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. Kalyanasundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80

…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…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…(Bom.); [iii] Maxopp Investment Ltd. 203 Taxman 364 (Del.); [iv] CIT vs Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H); [v] CIT vs Metalman Auto P.Ltd. 336 ITR 434 (P&H); [vi] CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.); [vii] CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom.); [ix] CIT vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor 319 ITR 299 (Del). 43. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that looking to the facts of the present case, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act would be warranted. Firstly, the AO has not recorded any satisfaction as mandated u/s 14A of the Act and Secondly, without prejudice to aforesaid, no part of the expe…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…(Bom.); [iii] Maxopp Investment Ltd. 203 Taxman 364 (Del.); [iv] CIT vs Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H); [v] CIT vs Metalman Auto P.Ltd. 336 ITR 434 (P&H); [vi] CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.); [vii] CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom.); [ix] CIT vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor 319 ITR 299 (Del). 43. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that looking to the facts of the present case, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act would be warranted. Firstly, the AO has not recorded any satisfaction as mandated u/s 14A of the Act and Secondly, without prejudice to aforesaid, no part of the expe…

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

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

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

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

…cision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . This decision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . 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.). High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom.). 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 rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has h…

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

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

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

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

…cision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . This decision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . 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.). High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom.). 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 rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has h…

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

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

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

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

…cision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . This decision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . 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.). High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom.). 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 rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has h…

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

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

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

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

…cision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . This decision'of the Special Bench has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay . 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.). High Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bom.). 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 rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals rther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has h…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore vs. Mr. Shorff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha, Kodagu

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

ITA 997/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…Prakash Chand Nahta vs Union of India (247 ITR 274) (SC) - Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (26 ITR 775) - CIT v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. (418 ITR 315) (SC) - Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. v. CCE (62 taxmann.com 3) (SC) - CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (421 ITR 686) (Bom HC) 12. For the reasons set out above therefore, it is thus submitted that the contentions put forth by the Ld. CIT, DR deserves to be rejected. The facts on record clearly show that the seized material did not relate/pertain to the assessee and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act was invalid. In that view of the ma…

Century Textiles and Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2085/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010
Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

…dingly, this issue is being decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue. 8. Further, we find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 421 ITR 686 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under:- 9. Additionally, we also notice that similar issue came up for consideration before Chhattisgarh High Court in case of CIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 551/223 Taxman 234, in which the Court held and observed as under: "31. The market value of the power supplied to the Steel-Division…

Asst Comm of Income Tax -6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1967/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

…dingly, this issue is being decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue. 8. Further, we find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 421 ITR 686 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under:- 9. Additionally, we also notice that similar issue came up for consideration before Chhattisgarh High Court in case of CIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 551/223 Taxman 234, in which the Court held and observed as under: "31. The market value of the power supplied to the Steel-Division…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)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…

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 3307/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)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 CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6405/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 28

…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…