DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.

351 ITR 314High Court2013#4040 most cited

What is DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd. authority for?

Subsidies received for setting up a unit or expanding an existing unit, or entertainment tax exemptions for such purposes, are capital in nature and not revenue. These can be reduced while computing book profits under MAT provisions.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd. · subsidy · capital receipt · revenue receipt · book profits · MAT · section 115JB · entertainment tax exemption

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

minimum alternate taxtax benefitbook profitssection 260section 54section 115jbsection 115jliable to taxsection 254section 115section 11section 26

Judgments citing DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Heavy Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2816/KOL/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

…harat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC). The similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forging Pvt. Ltd. 251 ITR 15 (Bom) and also by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. 351 ITR 314 (Guj.). the Ld. CIT(A) held that in view of the above factual position, accounting principles and judicial decisions, the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.36,93,429/- on account of provisions for gratuity while computing the book profit 4 ITA Nos.2815-2816/K/2013 M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AY 1990-91 u/s. 115J of the Act and, the…

Kesoram Industries Limited (Sucessor of Hindusthan Heavy Chemicals Ltd.), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-X, Kolkata

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

ITA 2815/KOL/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

…harat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC). The similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forging Pvt. Ltd. 251 ITR 15 (Bom) and also by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd. 351 ITR 314 (Guj.). the Ld. CIT(A) held that in view of the above factual position, accounting principles and judicial decisions, the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.36,93,429/- on account of provisions for gratuity while computing the book profit 4 ITA Nos.2815-2816/K/2013 M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AY 1990-91 u/s. 115J of the Act and, the…

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 390/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…en by the appellant that the amount received/receivable from the Govt. of West Bengal in the form of Industrial Promotion Assistance for setting up a new unit is capital in nature, also find support from the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314 (Guj); CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 632 (Bom); Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 335 (J&K) and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Bros., 215 Taxman 145 (Bom)(Mag.). In view of the facts in the case of appellant company as well as respectfully following the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Jur…

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 389/KOL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…en by the appellant that the amount received/receivable from the Govt. of West Bengal in the form of Industrial Promotion Assistance for setting up a new unit is capital in nature, also find support from the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314 (Guj); CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 632 (Bom); Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 335 (J&K) and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Bros., 215 Taxman 145 (Bom)(Mag.). In view of the facts in the case of appellant company as well as respectfully following the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Jur…

DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S Budge Budge Refineries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…en by the appellant that the amount received/receivable from the Govt. of West Bengal in the form of Industrial Promotion Assistance for setting up a new unit is capital in nature, also find support from the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Inox Leisure Ltd., 351 ITR 314 (Guj); CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 339 ITR 632 (Bom); Shree Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 335 (J&K) and CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Bros., 215 Taxman 145 (Bom)(Mag.). In view of the facts in the case of appellant company as well as respectfully following the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Jur…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…(Mum.) (d) CIT v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd: 364 ITR 88 (Mum) (e) CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal in ITA: 472 of 2010 (P&H) (f) CIT v. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.) (g) DCIT v. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.) (h) DCIT v. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj.) (i) CIT v. Samta Chavigarh: ITA No. 144 of 2007 (Raj)/ 222 Taxman 205 (Mag.) (j) CIT v. Udupi Builders P. Ltd.319 ITR 440 (Kar) (k) CIT v. Rasoi Ltd : 335 ITR 438 (Cal.) (l) PVR Limited v. ACIT: ITA No. 1897/ Del/ 2010 (Del ITAT) (m)Honda Siel Cars India Ltd : ITA No.5577/ D/ 2004 (Del. ITAT) (n) Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd v DCIT : 91 TTJ…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…hree Balaji Alloys (supra), Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd(supra) and by Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries (supra), Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309, Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88, by Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Leisure ltd. 351 ITR 314. However, the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly held that the facts are different and has erroneously refused to follow these judgements. Following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon‟ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys, held th…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6697/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…hree Balaji Alloys (supra), Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd(supra) and by Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries (supra), Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309, Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88, by Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Leisure ltd. 351 ITR 314. However, the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly held that the facts are different and has erroneously refused to follow these judgements. Following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon‟ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys, held th…

Man Industries India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6696/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6696,6697&6698/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Man Industries India Ltd Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Off. Tax-(Ltu), बिधम/ 29Th Floor, Centre No 1, World Pawan Hans, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 2675G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri N.P.Singh Citdr

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh CITDR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…hree Balaji Alloys (supra), Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd(supra) and by Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries (supra), Chaphalkar Brothers 351 ITR 309, Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 364 ITR 88, by Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Leisure ltd. 351 ITR 314. However, the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly held that the facts are different and has erroneously refused to follow these judgements. Following the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon‟ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys, held th…