CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.

178 ITR 181High Court1999#4816 most cited

What is CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. authority for?

Grant-in-aid received for land acquisition and rehabilitation is capital in nature and not taxable as revenue income.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. · grant-in-aid · capital in nature · revenue income · land acquisition · rehabilitation · full bench decision · Kerala High Court

Also reported as

46 Taxmann 1

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 80iabsection 3asection 262section 160section 153(3)section 113section 114section 124section 155deduction under section 80iasection 264

Judgments citing CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…f the assessee and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee company. 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the issue in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1999) 178 ITR 181 overturned the findings of AO by holding that the amount of Rs.2,36,75,00,000/- (A.Y. 2012-13) being the grant-in-aid towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP and other projects as capital in nature. However, both the Revenue as well as the assessee have challenged these findings by filing cross appeals. 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue ch…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…f the assessee and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee company. 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the issue in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1999) 178 ITR 181 overturned the findings of AO by holding that the amount of Rs.2,36,75,00,000/- (A.Y. 2012-13) being the grant-in-aid towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP and other projects as capital in nature. However, both the Revenue as well as the assessee have challenged these findings by filing cross appeals. 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue ch…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…f the assessee and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee company. 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the issue in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1999) 178 ITR 181 overturned the findings of AO by holding that the amount of Rs.2,36,75,00,000/- (A.Y. 2012-13) being the grant-in-aid towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP and other projects as capital in nature. However, both the Revenue as well as the assessee have challenged these findings by filing cross appeals. 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue ch…

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…of the assessee and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee company. 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the issue in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1999) 178 ITR 181 overturned the findings of AO by holding that the amount of Rs.2,36,75,00,000/- (A.Y. 2012-13) being the grant-in-aid towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP and other projects as capital in nature. However, both the Revenue as well as the assessee have challenged these findings by filing cross appeals. 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue cha…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7258/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…of the assessee and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee company. 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the issue in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1999) 178 ITR 181 overturned the findings of AO by holding that the amount of Rs.2,36,75,00,000/- (A.Y. 2012-13) being the grant-in-aid towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP and other projects as capital in nature. However, both the Revenue as well as the assessee have challenged these findings by filing cross appeals. 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue cha…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…f the assessee and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee company. 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the issue in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1999) 178 ITR 181 overturned the findings of AO by holding that the amount of Rs.2,36,75,00,000/- (A.Y. 2012-13) being the grant-in-aid towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP and other projects as capital in nature. However, both the Revenue as well as the assessee have challenged these findings by filing cross appeals. 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue ch…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3682/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…of the assessee and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee company. 19. However, the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the issue in the light of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1999) 178 ITR 181 overturned the findings of AO by holding that the amount of Rs.2,36,75,00,000/- (A.Y. 2012-13) being the grant-in-aid towards land acquisition/rehabilitation of PAP and other projects as capital in nature. However, both the Revenue as well as the assessee have challenged these findings by filing cross appeals. 20. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue cha…

ATHAANG DEVANHALLI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2085/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 2083 of 2017 and others Athang Devanhalli Tollway P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Appeal in ITA No Assessee Revenue A.Y 2083/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2012-13 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) way Pvt Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AADCN2001N 1981/Hyd/2017 Dy. CIT Athang 2013-14 Circle 8(1) Devanhalli Toll Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 2084/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2013-14 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 1982/Hy…

ATHAANG DEVANHALLI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2084/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 2083 of 2017 and others Athang Devanhalli Tollway P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Appeal in ITA No Assessee Revenue A.Y 2083/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2012-13 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) way Pvt Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AADCN2001N 1981/Hyd/2017 Dy. CIT Athang 2013-14 Circle 8(1) Devanhalli Toll Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 2084/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2013-14 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 1982/Hy…

ATHAANG DEVANHALLI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2083/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 2083 of 2017 and others Athang Devanhalli Tollway P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Appeal in ITA No Assessee Revenue A.Y 2083/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2012-13 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) way Pvt Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AADCN2001N 1981/Hyd/2017 Dy. CIT Athang 2013-14 Circle 8(1) Devanhalli Toll Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 2084/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2013-14 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 1982/Hy…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ATHAANG DEVANHALLI TOLLWAY PVT. LTD. , HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1982/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 2083 of 2017 and others Athang Devanhalli Tollway P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Appeal in ITA No Assessee Revenue A.Y 2083/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2012-13 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) way Pvt Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AADCN2001N 1981/Hyd/2017 Dy. CIT Athang 2013-14 Circle 8(1) Devanhalli Toll Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 2084/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2013-14 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 1982/Hy…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ATHAANG DEVANHALLI TOLLWAY PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1981/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ITA Nos 2083 of 2017 and others Athang Devanhalli Tollway P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Appeal in ITA No Assessee Revenue A.Y 2083/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2012-13 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) way Pvt Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AADCN2001N 1981/Hyd/2017 Dy. CIT Athang 2013-14 Circle 8(1) Devanhalli Toll Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 2084/Hyd/2017 Athang Income Tax Officer 2013-14 Devanhalli Toll Ward 16(1) Hyderabad way Pvt Ltd PAN:AADCN2001N 1982/Hy…

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. ACIT (NFAC) Plot No.A-43, Phase-II, Delhi MIDC Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCB 2304 E Assessee by Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 28.02.20…

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3890/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…ct of the assessee and relied on the circulars and granted the relief observed at Para 8.2.8 to 8.6 of the order read as under: 8.2.8 It has relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. [1989] 178 ITR 181 wherein subsidy given for replanting rubber plants of high yielding varieties or rubber plants which the Rubber Board and the Government thought necessary for the development of the rubber industry, a purpose of vital public interest, was treated as a capital receipt by observing it to be difficult to say that the subsidy given to the rubber grow…

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nst the expenditure incurred by them for maintaining the rubber plantation and producing the rubber." 23. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court examined the question of subsidy received for replanting rubber trees in the case of CIT v . Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. 178 ITR 181. It dealt with a scheme of subsidy framed by the Rubber Board in 1967 for replanting rubber plants. The subsidy was not given for budding immature unselected plants but was restricted to replanting only of old and uneconomic trees. The subsidy was not for the purpose of unkeep or maintenance of mature or immature rubber trees. On these facts, the…

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nst the expenditure incurred by them for maintaining the rubber plantation and producing the rubber." 23. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court examined the question of subsidy received for replanting rubber trees in the case of CIT v . Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. 178 ITR 181. It dealt with a scheme of subsidy framed by the Rubber Board in 1967 for replanting rubber plants. The subsidy was not given for budding immature unselected plants but was restricted to replanting only of old and uneconomic trees. The subsidy was not for the purpose of unkeep or maintenance of mature or immature rubber trees. On these facts, the…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NESTLE INDIA LTD., GURGAON

ITA 2020/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2020AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 244ASection 92

…eliance on the following decisions while holding as aforesaid: - Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT: 306 ITR 392 (SC) dated 16.09.2008 - Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Others v. CIT: 228 ITR 253 (SC) dated 19.09.1997 - CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.: 178 ITR 181 (Kerala) dated 06.04.1989 [The said decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalpetta Estate Ltd. v. CIT: 221 ITR 601 (SC) dated 16.06.1996] 7.3.3 We note that it is settled law that the taxation of subsidy, by whatever name called, is determined by the DCIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. purpose for which the subsidy is granted an…

M/S. NESTLE INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, LTU, NEW DELHI

ITA 1954/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2020AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 244ASection 92

…eliance on the following decisions while holding as aforesaid: - Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT: 306 ITR 392 (SC) dated 16.09.2008 - Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Others v. CIT: 228 ITR 253 (SC) dated 19.09.1997 - CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.: 178 ITR 181 (Kerala) dated 06.04.1989 [The said decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalpetta Estate Ltd. v. CIT: 221 ITR 601 (SC) dated 16.06.1996] 7.3.3 We note that it is settled law that the taxation of subsidy, by whatever name called, is determined by the DCIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. purpose for which the subsidy is granted an…

M/S CHHATTISGARH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh BeganiFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra
Section 143(3)

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण"यायपीठरायपुरम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY,JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.76/RPR/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited. Khanij Bhawan, Sona Khan Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Purena Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AACCC1884D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG). ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhilesh Begani Revenue by : Shri P.K. Mishra सुनवाई क" तार…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, , PUNE vs. UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1994/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 12, Pune …. Vs. Universal Construction Machinery & Equipment Limited, Sr. No. 17/1B, Universal House, N.D.A. Road, Old Warje Jakat Naka, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune - 411038 Pan: Aaacu7808B

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu DasFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e company under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 of the state government need to be treated as revenue receipt. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in appreciating the decision of the Hon 'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ruby Rubber Works Limited (178 ITR 181) (Ker) wherein the Hon 'ble Court observed that "the expenditure in the acquisition of the concern will be capital expenditure and the expenditure in carrying on the concern is revenue expenditure." The said judgement makes the incentive received by the assessee company clearly of the nature of revenue receipt. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2