CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

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

…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 3(1), Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…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…

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formelry Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…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-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ई ” "ी बा"करण बी . आर . , लेखा सद"य एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ E ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) ACIT-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/s. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. JD Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 PAN:AAACT-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/…

ITO -33 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh C.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aajps 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/W Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9th floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. PAN No. AAJPS 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date of Hearing : 21/09/…

ITO -33 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh C.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aajps 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/W Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9th floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. PAN No. AAJPS 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date of Hearing : 21/09/…

ITO -33 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh C.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aajps 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/W Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9th floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. PAN No. AAJPS 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date of Hearing : 21/09/…

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…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…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…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…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…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…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sudal Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2013 – 14 is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee for the same year as well as for the assessment year 2014 – ...

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sudal Industries Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 26, Nariman Bhavan, 227, 3(3)(2), Room No. 638, 6Th Nariman Point, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mubai-400 021 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs0705K

…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 Id. 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…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A No.6908/Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2117/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- Taxation Department, L&T tax, Range-2(2), Mumbai House N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001 PAN : AAACL0140P APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A No.6878 /Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2284/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner of vs Larsen & Toubro Limited Income-tax, Range-2(2), Taxation Department, L&T House Mumbai N.M. Mar…

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

…ed. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- • Hero Cycles Limited (323 ITR 518) (P&H HC) • Metalman Auto (P.) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 434 (P&H) • ACIT vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 338 (Mum ITAT) • CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. [2009] 339 ITR 632 (Bom HC) • Sam P Bharucha vs ACIT [2012] 53 SOT 192 (Mum ITAT) 64. In view of the above, it is submitted that since there is no expenditure incurred at all by the assessee in connection with the investment made in the subsidiary company, there should be no disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. C. Only those investments to be considered…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

…gree, even as learned Departmental Representative vehemently relies upon the assessment order- as usual, that the issue is now covered by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court‟s judgment, in assessee‟s own case – reported as CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd [(2020) 423 ITR 236 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: 2. Question (i) pertains to Revenue's contention that for computing the assessee's Book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), provision made by the assessee for wealth tax should be excluded. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the sect…

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

…gree, even as learned Departmental Representative vehemently relies upon the assessment order- as usual, that the issue is now covered by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court‟s judgment, in assessee‟s own case – reported as CIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd [(2020) 423 ITR 236 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: 2. Question (i) pertains to Revenue's contention that for computing the assessee's Book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), provision made by the assessee for wealth tax should be excluded. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the sect…