Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd.

373 ITR 14High Court2015#4513 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

A subsidy granted after the commencement of production can be utilized by the assessee to augment profits or recoup capital, and the purpose test for such subsidies should be interpreted broadly.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Bougainvilla Multiplex · subsidy · capital receipt · augmentation of profit · recoup capital · purpose test · Ponni Sugars

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysissection 80ibcorporate guarantee

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of the Income vs. M/S Vardhman Industries Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/725/2004HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…e absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 14. There too, the Court held that subsidy given at the point of time after the commencement of production did not mean that the State ruled out capital utilization of the funds received. On the other hand, the very concept of grant of subsidy meant that the assessee was free to use it either to augment its profit or to recoup its capital. Th…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/434/2005HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…e absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 14. There too, the Court held that subsidy given at the point of time after the commencement of production did not mean that the State ruled out capital utilization of the funds received. On the other hand, the very concept of grant of subsidy meant that the assessee was free to use it either to augment its profit or to recoup its capital. Th…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/316/2003HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…e absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 14. There too, the Court held that subsidy given at the point of time after the commencement of production did not mean that the State ruled out capital utilization of the funds received. On the other hand, the very concept of grant of subsidy meant that the assessee was free to use it either to augment its profit or to recoup its capital. Th…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/315/2003HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…e absence of any provision in the scheme with regard to the use of funds. 17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 14. There too, the Court held that subsidy given at the point of time after the commencement of production did not mean that the State ruled out capital utilization of the funds received. On the other hand, the very concept of grant of subsidy meant that the assessee was free to use it either to augment its profit or to recoup its capital. Th…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

ITTA/434/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bougainvilla Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd. (373 ITR 14) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax