DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

88 ITD 273Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#576 most cited

What is DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. authority for?

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

169

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. · 88 ITD 273 · capital receipt · revenue receipt · nature of subsidy · interest subsidy · sales tax subsidy · purchase tax subsidy · Special Bench ITAT · Section 2(24) · Section 43(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 132Section 139(5)Section 148Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 32(1)(iia)section 80hsection 43(1)section 43ainitial assessment yearsection 80hhcsection 80hhblock of assetsadditional depreciationwritten down valuededuction under section 80ia

Judgments citing DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 7791/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E” : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.7791/Mum./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Everest Industries Limited The DCIT, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Ashar I.T. Park, 6th Floor, Noida – 201 301 vs. B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Uttar Pradesh Industrial Estate, PAN AAACE7550N Thane (W)- 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.554/Mum./2020 Assessment Year 2010-2011 The DCIT, Circle-1, Everest Industries Limited Room No.22, B-Wing, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan 6th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, vs. Coop. Industrie…

ACIT, Circle - Tinsukia, Tinsukia vs. M/S. Greenply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…ITA No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘GUWAHATI BENCH’ AT KOLKATA, [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited,.......................................................Appellant Makum Road, P.O. Tinsukia, Assam-786125 [PAN: AAACG7284R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.....................................Respondent Circle-Tinsukia, Aayakar Bhawan,…

Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…ITA No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘GUWAHATI BENCH’ AT KOLKATA, [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited,.......................................................Appellant Makum Road, P.O. Tinsukia, Assam-786125 [PAN: AAACG7284R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.....................................Respondent Circle-Tinsukia, Aayakar Bhawan,…

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)

…state governments, relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd reported in 306 ITR 392 (SC) as well as the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd reported in 88 ITD 273 held that sales tax incentive/subsidy is a capital receipt. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is in appeals before us. 4. The ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to the eight additional grounds raised by the Revenue for the above mentioned assessment years. We find that all those additional grounds are merely argumentative in natu…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…y the Tribunal in A.Y. 2000-01 in assessee’s own case to the file of the A.O. to decide after considering the decision of Special Bench in 24 ITA No. 4753 & 5584/MUM/2004 (A.Y. 2002-03) Grasim Industries Limited, the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 88 ITD 273 (Mum). Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we restore this issue back to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same in the light of the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1999- 2000 in ITA No. 5631/Bom/2002, wherein the Tribunal at para No. 26.1 on page 11 has restored the issue back to the file of the A…

Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1766/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1766/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hyundai Construction Equipment India Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Circle-9, Plot No.A/2, Chakan, Midc, Pune Phase Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune 410 501 Pan : Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

…pital grant receivable for the purpose of setting up the company in a backward area for the purpose of development of that area and employment generation. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions : -DCIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2003) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB) -Income Tax Officer Vs. The Thermodors Pvt. Ltd. (Unreported) -CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) -CIT Vs. Elys Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 11 (Bom.) -CIT Vs. Tirumala Bricks and Tiles Factory (1996) 217 ITR 547 (AP) -CBDT Circular No.142 dated 1 August 1974 However, the Company for the purpose of its tax computat…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4185/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4067/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 341/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 220/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…reas, the same would, in our view, be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 21. It is pertinent to note that, a similar issue has been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 88 ITD 273 (Mum). In that case, the assessee Patalganga unit was eligible for the incentives announced by the Government of Maharashtra under its Scheme of year 1979, wherein the assessee was exempt from liability for payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years. The assessee claimed the sales tax exemption amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. The af…

DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi vs. M/S. Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd., Gurgaon

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

ITA 1915/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

…79 scheme. We further note ITA No. 5233/Del/2017 that the Tribunal in ITA No. 678 & 679/Del/2012 in the case of M/s Indo Rama Textiles Ltd. on identical facts has held that the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal, Special Bench in the case of Reliance Industries 88 ITD 273 is applicable. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasonable order which does not need any- interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the same." 8. Respectfully following the same we decline to interfere. Appeal by the revenue is accordingly dismissed. 6. Res…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Genus Electrotech Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 701/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…as capital receipts and delete the additions made in this regard. 3.6. The submission of the appellant is considered after careful study of the facts and case laws. The appellant's case is similar to the facts in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mum (SB) decided by Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai as relied on by the Learned Counsel. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 260 ITR 605 (Mad). This decision was latter on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v…

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 348/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…as capital receipts and delete the additions made in this regard. 3.6. The submission of the appellant is considered after careful study of the facts and case laws. The appellant's case is similar to the facts in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mum (SB) decided by Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai as relied on by the Learned Counsel. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 260 ITR 605 (Mad). This decision was latter on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Genus Eletrotech Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 2617/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…as capital receipts and delete the additions made in this regard. 3.6. The submission of the appellant is considered after careful study of the facts and case laws. The appellant's case is similar to the facts in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mum (SB) decided by Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai as relied on by the Learned Counsel. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 260 ITR 605 (Mad). This decision was latter on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v…

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 2461/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…as capital receipts and delete the additions made in this regard. 3.6. The submission of the appellant is considered after careful study of the facts and case laws. The appellant's case is similar to the facts in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mum (SB) decided by Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai as relied on by the Learned Counsel. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 260 ITR 605 (Mad). This decision was latter on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 99/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…as capital receipts and delete the additions made in this regard. 3.6. The submission of the appellant is considered after careful study of the facts and case laws. The appellant's case is similar to the facts in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mum (SB) decided by Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai as relied on by the Learned Counsel. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 260 ITR 605 (Mad). This decision was latter on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v…