Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 37(1), Section 115J, Section 115JA, Section 115JB, Section 132.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (9 SCC 337)

Q: What is Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

The classification of a government subsidy as either a revenue or capital receipt depends on its object and purpose. If the subsidy is given to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or expand an existing one, it is a capital receipt; if it is to meet recurring expenses, it is a revenue receipt.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (9 SCC 337), spanning 2011 to 2025.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Pvr Ltd

The appeal is dismissed in favour of the

ITA/279/2025HC Delhi01 Sept 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 43(1)

…Brothers (supra) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolhapur v. M/s Chaphalkar Brothers Pune: 2017 INSC 1198. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited : (2008) 9 SCC 337 and observed as under:- “What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the “purpose test”. It was specifically held that the point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant; the source of the subsidy is immaterial; the form of subsidy is equally immaterial…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Pvr Ltd

ITA/113/2025HC Delhi29 Apr 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 260A

…lkar Brothers (supra) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolhapur v. M/s Chaphalkar Brothers Pune: 2017 INSC 1198. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited : (2008) 9 SCC 337 and observed as under:- “What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the “purpose test”. It was specifically held that the point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant; the source of the subsidy is immaterial; the form of subsidy is equally immaterial. Applyin…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr vs. M/S Greenply Industries Limited

ITA/6/2023HC Gauhati03 Mar 2025

Bench: Honourable The Chief Justice Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date Of Judgment & Order : 04.03.2025

For Respondent: B SARMA, DR. ASHOK SARAF,MR P BARUAH,MR. N N

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 260A

…Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010269782022 2025:GAU-AS:2199-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : ITA/3/2023 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M.G. ROAD, SHILLONG- 793001. 2: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 DIBRUGARH OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 DIBRUGARH PUSHKARA HOUSE NATUN GAON NH-37 P.O.- MOHANGHAT DIBRUGARH- 786008 VERSUS M/S GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. MAGGUL LOUNGE, 5…

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 320/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. (b) In fact this issue about the object/purpose of the subsidy deciding its character as revenue or capital is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Madras v/s. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 337 and in Civil Appeal No.10666 of 2013 (CIT v/s. M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys) rendered on 19 th April, 2016. Thus the test has been correctly applied by the Tribunal in accordance with the above decisions. (c) In the above view, question no.(i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Regarding questi…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are

ITA 1176/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. (b) In fact this issue about the object/purpose of the subsidy deciding its character as revenue or capital is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Madras v/s. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 337 and in Civil Appeal No.10666 of 2013 (CIT v/s. M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys) rendered on 19 th April, 2016. Thus the test has been correctly applied by the Tribunal in accordance with the above decisions. (c) In the above view, question no.(i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Regarding question…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1175/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…o be on Revenue account. (b) In fact this issue about the object/purpose of the subsidy deciding its character as revenue or capital is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Madras v/s. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 337 and in Civil Appeal No.10666 of 2013 (CIT v/s. M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys) rendered on 19 th April, 2016. Thus the test has been correctly applied by the Tribunal in accordance with the above decisions. (c) In the above view, question no.(i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Regarding question…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. (b) In fact this issue about the object/purpose of the subsidy deciding its character as revenue or capital is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Madras v/s. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 337 and in Civil Appeal No.10666 of 2013 (CIT v/s. M/s. Shree Balaji Alloys) rendered on 19 th April, 2016. Thus the test has been correctly applied by the Tribunal in accordance with the above decisions. (c) In the above view, question no.(i) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 4. Regarding questi…

M/S Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd, Kolkata & Anr vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-3, Kolkata & Ors

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the

ITA/134/2012HC Calcutta27 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.4.2012 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 282/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Appeal Was Admitted On 30.11.2012 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- I) “Whether The Transport Subsidy Received By The Undertaking Engaged In Manufacturing Process Is Covered By The Meaning Of The Expression “Business Income” Within The Meaning Of Section 80 Ic Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Substantial Question Of Law Which Has Been Admitted For Consideration Arise In The Assessee’S Own Case For The Assessment Year 2011-12 In I.T.A. No. 140 Of 2019 & By Judgment Dated 26.09.2022, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Was Dismissed. Thus The Substantial Question Of Law Which Has Been Admitted For Consideration In This Appeal Stood Answered In Favour Of The Assessee In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No. 140 Of 2019. The Operation Portion Of The Judgment Reads As Follows :-

Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…r. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in “Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.”, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337, or in the alternate, in “Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.”, reported in (2016) 3 SCALE 192. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 4 No costs.” As against the order passed in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd., the revenue had preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Meghalaya Ste…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata vs. M/S.Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd

ITA/140/2019HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…a, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in “Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals 4 Ltd.”, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337, or in the alternate, in “Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.”, reported in (2016) 3 SCALE 192. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.” As against the order passed in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd., the revenue had preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Megh…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed and that of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sapna Bhatia, Ld. CIT/DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80I

…r. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.", reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337,or in the alternate, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.",reported in (2016)3SCALE 192. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No Costs. ----------------------- [KURIAN JOSEPH] ------------------------- [R. BANUMATHI] New Delhi April 19, 2016 6. At the time the assessment order was passed the decision of Hon'ble Apex court wa…

M/S. Insecticides (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed and that of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3297/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sapna Bhatia, Ld. CIT/DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80I

…r. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.", reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337,or in the alternate, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.",reported in (2016)3SCALE 192. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No Costs. ----------------------- [KURIAN JOSEPH] ------------------------- [R. BANUMATHI] New Delhi April 19, 2016 6. At the time the assessment order was passed the decision of Hon'ble Apex court wa…

Crystal Corp Protection Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3930/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

…by the department to the Supreme Court held dismissing the appeal: "The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.", reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337, or in the alternate, in "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.", reported in (2016) 3 SCALE 192 (383 ITR 217 (SC)). Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons given above, the revenue's ground of appeal is dismissed." 24. The appeal of the assessee on the ground of Excise Duty subsidy and interest subsidy as capital receipt is hereby…