CIT v. Udaya Pictures ( P.) Ltd.

225 ITR 394High Court1997#19946 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Udaya Pictures ( P.) Ltd.

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)

…29. On the basis of that vital distinction, the Court held that the ratio of the judgement of this court in Meenakshi Achi's case was not applicable in the facts of the case before it. 30. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Udaya Picture (p) Ltd., 225 ITR 394, subsidy was granted by the State Government for producing new regional films. It was held that the entitlement to the subsidy sprang from the business carried on by the assessee and the amount was received during the course of conduct of the business. What was received by the assessee was not capital receipt but a subsidy. 31. The facts of this…

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

…rest." 29. On the basis of that vital distinction, the Court held that the ratio of the judgment of this Court in V.S.S. V. Meenakshi Achi's case (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the case before it. 30. In the case of CIT v. Udaya Pictures ( P.) Ltd 225 ITR 394, subsidy was granted by the State Government for producing new regional films. It was held that the entitlement to the subsidy sprang from the business carried on by the assessee and the amount was received during the course of conduct of the business. What was received by the assessee was not capital receipt but a subsidy. 31. The facts of this…

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

…rest." 29. On the basis of that vital distinction, the Court held that the ratio of the judgment of this Court in V.S.S. V. Meenakshi Achi's case (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the case before it. 30. In the case of CIT v. Udaya Pictures ( P.) Ltd 225 ITR 394, subsidy was granted by the State Government for producing new regional films. It was held that the entitlement to the subsidy sprang from the business carried on by the assessee and the amount was received during the course of conduct of the business. What was received by the assessee was not capital receipt but a subsidy. 31. The facts of this…

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)

…arranted, against the settled principles of law and based on incorrect assumption of facts. 10. That the judgments relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in the cases of V.S.S.V. Meenakshi Achi Vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT Vs. Udaya Pictures (P) Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 394 ( Ker. HC) have been rendered on entirely different & distinguishable facts wherein the purpose of giving subsidies were given as a helping hand to conduct the business in a more portable manner. 11. That the Appellant respectfully submits that applying the 'Purpose Test' that determines the character of receipt in the hands of the assessee for…

CIT v. Udaya Pictures ( P.) Ltd. (225 ITR 394) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax