Commissioner of Income Tax Page 10 of 27 Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 27 v. Dusad Industries

162 ITR 734High Court#12243 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 43(1)section 43 prescribed person company india business document interest

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax Page 10 of 27 Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 27 v. Dusad Industries

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

…erence, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. On further appeal by assessee Hon’ble SC held while distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble M.P. High Court on identical facts- “34.The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Dusad Industries 162 ITR 734, dealt with a case where Government had framed a scheme for granting sales tax subsidies to industries set up in backward areas. The High Court was of the view that the object of the scheme was not to supplement the profits made by industries. In that view of the matter, the High Court held that the subsidies given under the said scheme by the Go…

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)

…tal to carrying out the business activity and it was not intended towards capital outlays of the industry. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Page 10 of 27 Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 27 v. Dusad Industries, 162 ITR 734 decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee and has reproduced clause 8(A) of scheme in the said judgment as under: “ Units having capital investment up to 50 lakhs set up in category 'A' backward districts will be entitled to a subsidy of 75% of the sales tax paid in a year for a period of five years from the date of starting productio…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97

Section 143(3)

…exemption available, not being capital subsidy. 4.8. The ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon‟ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dusad Industries Ltd., reported in 162 ITR 734 (MP) was overruled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd supra. Hence, Madhya Pradesh Scheme pursuant to which assessee has received subsidy has to be construed as a revenue receipt. 4.9. The ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue stated that the decision relied by the ld. CIT(A) on Hon‟ble Supreme Court in th…

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

…ntribution towards capital outlay of the industry. Therefore, it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee in that case could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. 34. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v . Dusad Industries 162 ITR 734, dealt with a case where Government had framed a scheme for granting sales tax subsidies to industries set up in backward areas. The High Court was of the view that the object of the scheme was not to supplement the profits made by industries. In that view of the matter, the High Court held that the subsidies given under the said scheme by the Go…

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

ACIT, Circle-31, Kolkata vs. M/S Agro Life Science Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1863/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Circle-31, V/S. M/S Agro Life Science 10B, Middleton Row, Corporation, Fmc Fortuna 4Th Floor, Kolkata-71 Building, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20 [Pan No.Aakfa 5781 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjeev Kadel, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata Dated 21.06.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-31, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows:- “1.”That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Allowing The Amount Of Rs.2,34,84,055/- & Rs.82,192/- On Account Of Excise Duty Refund & Interest Subsidy Respectively As Capital Receipt.” 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals)Has Not Taken Into Account The Verdict In The Following Cases: A) Sehanay Steel Pres Works Ltd. & Ors Vs. Cit (1997) 228 Itr 253 B) Kesoram Industries & Cotton Ltd. Vs. Cit (1991) 191 Itr 518

Section 143(3)

…n nature. The assessee in support of its claim relied on various judgments as detailed under:- a) Sahney Steel 7 Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) b) Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 191 ITR 734 (Cal) c) CIT vs. Dusad Industries 162 ITR 734 (MP) Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee deleted the addition made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Conclusion: 4.1 The issue of treatment of Excise Duty Refund and Interest subsidy has been considered by Hon'ble High Court (J & K) in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) and have been held to be capital r…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ken by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dusad Industries (supra) was erroneous. The relevant observation of their Lordships reported at page 267 of 228 ITR reads as under:- “The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v . Dusad Industries 162 ITR 734, dealt with a case where Government had framed a scheme for granting sales tax subsidies to industries set up in backward areas. The High Court was of the view that the object of the scheme was not to supplement the profits made by industries. In that view of the matter, the High Court held that the subsidies given under the said scheme by the Go…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263