DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Cosmo Films Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roycosmo Films Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 6 (2), 1008, Dlf Tower A, New Delhi. Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacc1152C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.10.2013 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6 (2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

…up to the Tribunal in the first round of litigation and the Tribunal in ITA No. 2831/DEL/07 and others have given a categorical finding that Sales Tax subsidy is of capital in nature, following the Special Bench decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd 88 ITD 273, which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, Sales Tax subsidy is treated as capital receipt.” 12. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, we allow ground nos.3 to 3.3. 13. In the result, the appeal filed b…

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

…High Court  CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)  CIT vs- Rasoi Ltd. [(2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.)]  CIT v. Chapalkhar Brothers [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC)  DCIT vs.- Reliance Industries (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum.)(SB)  CIT vs. Birla VXL Lt. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC);  Hydro Carbons & Chemicals vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982- 86/Kol/09)  Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT).  CIT v Gloster Jute mills Ltd ITA no. 766/Kol/2010  Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335/198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255 (J&K) 25. The…

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

…High Court  CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)  CIT vs- Rasoi Ltd. [(2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal.)]  CIT v. Chapalkhar Brothers [2017] 88 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC)  DCIT vs.- Reliance Industries (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum.)(SB)  CIT vs. Birla VXL Lt. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC);  Hydro Carbons & Chemicals vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982- 86/Kol/09)  Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT).  CIT v Gloster Jute mills Ltd ITA no. 766/Kol/2010  Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335/198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255 (J&K) 25. The…

M/S Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

…ital. The assessee ITA Nos.4859/Del/2009; ITA Nos.157 to 159, 4791, 4856 & 5358/Del/2010 & ITA No.2539/Del/2017 Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi Page 35 of 66 has placed reliance upon the judgement of Reliance Industries (Special Bench) decision reported in 88 ITD 273 and also on the judgement of Ponni Sugars reported in 306 ITR 392. However, the ld. AO discarded the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has neither made this claim either in the original return nor in the revised return. Therefore, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reporte…

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

…ssessee contended that assessee is entitled to treat Rs.16.91 crores as sales tax subsidy and Rs.6.46 crores as purchase tax subsidy being capital. The assessee has placed reliance upon the judgement of Reliance Industries (Special Bench) decision reported in 88 ITD 273 and also on the judgement of Ponni Sugars reported in 306 ITR 392. However, the ld. AO discarded the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has neither made this claim either in the original return nor in the revised return. Therefore, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reporte…

M/S Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by SC vide order dated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) 35. The ld AR emphasized that in the context of the very same units which were subsequently demerged to Jindal Poly Films Ltd, AO in AY 2016-17 vide order dated 30.10.2023, accepted that the incentive/subsidy is capital in nature. Page 25 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by SC vide order dated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) 35. The ld AR emphasized that in the context of the very same units which were subsequently demerged to Jindal Poly Films Ltd, AO in AY 2016-17 vide order dated 30.10.2023, accepted that the incentive/subsidy is capital in nature. Page 25 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

…ugar and Chemicals Limited: 306 ITR 392 • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom HC) affirmed by SC vide order dated 07.12.2017 in 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J&K) - SLP dismissed • DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB) 35. The ld AR emphasized that in the context of the very same units which were subsequently demerged to Jindal Poly Films Ltd, AO in AY 2016-17 vide order dated 30.10.2023, accepted that the incentive/subsidy is capital in nature. 36. The ld AR concluded his argument by stating that the finding of AO/CIT(A) are erroneous in view of foll…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Mis Indo Rama Textiles Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page 6 of 23 respondent/assessee) was similar to an earlier avatar of the scheme, i.e., 1979 Scheme, which was considered by its special bench of the Tribunal in the matter of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB). This direction was issued by the Tribunal on 01.02.2006. 8. Upon remand by the Tribunal, submissions were advanced before the AO qua the matter concerning sales tax subsidy on 28.12.2007. 8.1. The AO, however, was not persuaded by the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent/assessee and, accordingly, via order dated…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Mis Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page 6 of 23 respondent/assessee) was similar to an earlier avatar of the scheme, i.e., 1979 Scheme, which was considered by its special bench of the Tribunal in the matter of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB). This direction was issued by the Tribunal on 01.02.2006. 8. Upon remand by the Tribunal, submissions were advanced before the AO qua the matter concerning sales tax subsidy on 28.12.2007. 8.1. The AO, however, was not persuaded by the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent/assessee and, accordingly, via order dated…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Mis Indo Rama Textiles Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page 6 of 23 respondent/assessee) was similar to an earlier avatar of the scheme, i.e., 1979 Scheme, which was considered by its special bench of the Tribunal in the matter of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB). This direction was issued by the Tribunal on 01.02.2006. 8. Upon remand by the Tribunal, submissions were advanced before the AO qua the matter concerning sales tax subsidy on 28.12.2007. 8.1. The AO, however, was not persuaded by the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent/assessee and, accordingly, via order dated…