How many judgments cite CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors.?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. (138 DTR 36), spanning 2016 to 2025.

CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors.

138 DTR 36Supreme Court of India2016#4132 most cited

What is CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. authority for?

Incentives received by an industrial unit are capital in nature if granted to promote industrial development and employment, and are therefore not chargeable to tax. The purpose for which the subsidy is given, not the time or source of its grant, determines its character.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys · capital receipts · revenue receipts · excise subsidy · interest subsidy · sales tax exemption · purpose test · MAT provisions · section 80ib · section 80i · section 115jb · section 40(a) · section 43b · section 43 · section 14a · section 115

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib section 80i capital expenditure liable to tax section 115jb section 40(a)section 43b section 43 revenue expenditure section 14a section 115 section 80

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors.

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Acrylics Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 517/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Jain (on 13.12.2017)For Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR (on 13.12.2017)

Section 14ASection 25

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN No.AAACV7602E Assessment Year : 2011-12 The DCIT, Circle-1, Vs. M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana PAN No.AAACV7602E Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana PAN No.AAACV7602E & Assessment Year : 2012-13 The DCIT, Circle-1, Vs. M/s Vardhman Acrylics L…

Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Jain (on 13.12.2017)For Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR (on 13.12.2017)

Section 14ASection 25

Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 481/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Jain (on 13.12.2017)For Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DR (on 13.12.2017)

Section 14ASection 25

DCIT, Sangrur vs. M/S Padmawati Steel Ltd., Sangrur

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 587/CHANDI/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Padmawati Steels Ltd., Circle , Sangrur Road, Dibra, Sangrur Distt.Sangrur Pan No. Aaccp3844Q

For Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Garg, Advocate

Section 80I

…by the Hon’ble High Court. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 which was followed by the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Shri Balaji Alloys (2016) 138 DTR 36 (SC). ITA No.587/Chd/2014 - H.M. Steels & Padmawati Steel Ltd., Sangrur 14. Ld. DR fairly admitted that the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the jurisdictional High Court had been dismissed by the Apex Court. 15. As for the deduction claimed under section 80IC on the interest earned on FDR’s ,while Ld. Counsel for the assessee…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…he facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vis-à-vis decision of the Special Bench in case of Reliance Industries Ltd., 88 ITD 273, Shree Balaji Alloys Ltd., 138 DTR 36(SC), Rasoi Ltd., 335 ITR 438(CAL), Bougainvillea Multiples Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd., 373 ITR 014(Delhi), Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88 (Bom) and Associated Cement Cos. Ltd., ITA No.7594 & 7644/M/04, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for treating the same as capital receipt. Accordingly ground no.1 of revenue’s appea…

A.C.I.T.. Cir.-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sunvijay Rolling and Enginering Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 224/NAG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri A.R. NinaweFor Respondent: Shri K.P. Dewani

…1 ITA No. 224/Nag/2015. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. No. 224/Nag/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s Sanvijay Rolling and Circld-2, Nagpur. Vs. Engineering Ltd., Nagpur. PAN AACCS0217J. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Respondent by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Date of Hearing : 30-03-2017. Date of Pronouncement : 30th March, 2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(App…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…moving backwardness of the area that lagged behind in industrial development is to be treated as capital receipt. The said decision has since been confirmed by the Apex Court in CIT -vs.- Shree Balaji 7 M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. A.Yr.2007-08 AlIoys (2016) 138 DTR 36 (SC). It was submitted that similar view was given in following decisions :- - JCIT(OSD) -vs.- M/s. Keventer Agro Ltd (IT A No. 1663- 1665/KoV2011 dtd. 30-06- 2014) - DCIT - vs.- Ankit India Ltd. (ITA. No. 1330/Kol/2010 dtd. 16-11-2010] - DCIT -vs.- Reliance Industries. (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum)(SB) - CIT -vs.- Chaphalkar Brothers (2013) 351 ITR 309…

DCIT (Ltu) -1, Mumbai vs. Lupin Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7513/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sanjay Garg (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…held that excise refund received by that assessee, on identical circumstances, is capital in nature. He further submitted that the decision rendered by Hon'ble J&K High Court has since been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in very same case reported in (2016) 138 DTR 36. 11. We have heard learned Departmental Representative on this issue and perused the record. According to Ld A.R, this issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by Hon’ble J & K High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra). However, the Ld D.R submitted that there is some confusion about the quantum of deduction and also the pari…