Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhushan Steel Pvt. Ltd.

398 ITR 216High Court2017#20733 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhushan Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…5. The decision of this Court in CIT v. Johnson Matthey India (P) Ltd. (supra) was not appealed against by the Revenue. Further, it is pointed out by the Assessee that the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhushan Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 216 (Del), which has been relied upon by the Revenue, is in appeal before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 30728- 30732 of 2017 and has been stayed by that Court. 6. Since the sales tax subsidy under the same scheme that was the subject matter of CIT v. Johnson Matthey India (P) Ltd (supra) is also the subject matter of the present appeal, Questio…

M/S Steel Strips Wheels Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. G.S. Phani Kishore, CIT(DR)

…erred in treating the sales tax subsidy as capital receipts in nature despite the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vardhman Industries Ltd. vide consolidated order dated 13.07.2017 in ITA No.681/2004, 708/2004. 755/2004 & 725/2004, 398 ITR 216 wherein sales tax subsidy has been held to be a revenue receipt. v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and treating the sales tax subsidy as capital receipts in nature was wrongly followed despite the observation of…

DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh vs. M/S Steel Strips Wheels Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1233/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. G.S. Phani Kishore, CIT(DR)

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…hhindwara Fuels [114 Taxman 707], he contended that any Government subsidy received after the commencement of production is a revenue receipt. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT – vs.- Bhushan Steel Pvt. Limited [398 ITR 216] to contend that similar subsidy received by the assessee under U.P. State Subsidy Scheme to achieve larger goal of industrialisation was held to be revenue in nature chargeable to tax on the ground that the assessee had flexibility of using amount of subsidy for any purpose, not necessarily capital. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble…