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 367,164 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 153A Section 139(1)Section 147 Section 132 Section 139(5)Section 148 Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 32(1)(iia)section 80h section 43(1)section 43a initial assessment year section 80hhc section 80hh block of assets additional depreciation written down value deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.

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

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

ITA 1899/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

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. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1898/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

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 ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1763/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

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 100/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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 2831/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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 2830/AHD/2013[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…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 4

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner of Vs. 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, PAN: AAADFD2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv Revenue by: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv Date of Hearing 12/01/2021 Date of pronouncement 11/02/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is filed by the Dabur invest Corporation, [ The appel…

Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Indore vs. M/S Agya Auto Limited, Indore

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 540/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Agya Auto Ltd, The Income Tax Vs. 121 A.B. Road, Vijay Nagar, Officer 1(1), Indore Scheme No.54, Indore (Revenue ) (Respondent) Pan No.Aacca6203C Revenue By Smt. Vinita Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Shri Manoj Gupta & Pankaj Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing 04.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2021 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e under the subsidy scheme is to enable the appellant to set up a new unit the receipt .of subsidy would be on capital account. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:- 1. The Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal 111 DC!'I vs. Reliance Industries Limited (88 ITD 273) has held that if a subsidy is received for the development of industries in backward areas, it constitutes capital receipt regardless of the fact that it has been received only after the commencement of production as it is the "purpose' of the scheme which is of fundamental importance in determining the nature of the subsidy as revenue or capital…

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

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5233/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royasstt. Year 2013-14 Dcit Circle 12(1), Vs. M/S. Indo Rama Synthetics New Delhi. Ltd. 20Th Floor, Dlf Square, Dlf Phase-Ii, Nh-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)

…ntical to that of 1979 scheme. We further note 3 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. 9. In…

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant- assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5784/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5784/DEL/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 SRF Limited, vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1, LTU, C-8, Commercial Complex New Delhi. Safdarganj Development Area, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AABTA6009L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Adv. Respondent by: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 02 12 2019 Date of pronouncement: 24 02 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the assessee for the assessme…

Mrs. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 708/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 51Section 68

…ome of 'NIL' was filed on 07.04.2005. In the return filed in response to the notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee, inter alia, claimed deduction of Sales Tax Incentive relying on decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2004] 88 ITD 273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The claim was not held to be admissible by all the authorities. When…

Vardhman Holdings Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

…d on certain case laws but the A.O. dismissed the contention of the assessee after discussing the scheme in detail and referring to judgment in the case of M/s Sahni Steel & Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 228 ITR 253 (SC) and DCIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 88 ITD 273 (ITAT SB). 7. The assessee went in appeal to the CIT(A) who upheld the order of the A.O. relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1. 8. During the course of hearing before us the Ld. counsel for assessee relied upon the submissions made before the lower authorit…

ACIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Holdings Ltd., Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

…d on certain case laws but the A.O. dismissed the contention of the assessee after discussing the scheme in detail and referring to judgment in the case of M/s Sahni Steel & Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 228 ITR 253 (SC) and DCIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 88 ITD 273 (ITAT SB). 7. The assessee went in appeal to the CIT(A) who upheld the order of the A.O. relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd., 286 ITR 1. 8. During the course of hearing before us the Ld. counsel for assessee relied upon the submissions made before the lower authorit…

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…Mad), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : 394 ITR 192 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj), CIT vs. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.), DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited: 88 ITD 273 (Mum SB.). 11.2. He drew support from the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P.) Ltd.: 373 ITR 14. Ld. AR further submitted that a coordinate Bench of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal considered all relevant facts and decided 82 the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…the AO rejected the claim of the assessee and assessed the sales tax incentive of Rs.776.76 crores as income of the assessee. 4. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the Special bench of Tribunal had considered an identical issue in the assessee’s own case reported in 88 ITD 273, wherein it was held that the Sales tax incentive was capital in nature. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that his predecessor has followed the above said decision of Special Bench and held that the sales tax incentive is capital receipt. Since the facts are identical in nature, the Ld CIT(A) held that the Sales tax incentive is Capital in nature and accordi…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.7092/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2002–03) Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) 122, Maker Chambers–III ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACG0569P v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–3(1), Mumbai ITA no.7227/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2002–03) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–3(1), Mumbai v/s Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) 122, Maker Chamber…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7092/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2002-2003

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.7092/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2002–03) Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) 122, Maker Chambers–III ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACG0569P v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–3(1), Mumbai ITA no.7227/Mum./2005 (Assessment Year : 2002–03) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–3(1), Mumbai v/s Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) 122, Maker Chamber…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deegee Orchards P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4613/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…on rendered in the case of M/s Narendra Vegetable Products P Ltd (ITA No.118 to 124/Nag/2013) in this regard. Before ld CIT(A), the assessee has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries ltd (88 ITD 273), which was also followed in the case of NarendraVegetable Products P Ltd. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has held that the sales tax incentive, being a capital receipt, cannot be assessed to tax. 9. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R submitted that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal has already decided an identical issue in the hands of the assessee in AY…

DCIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svg Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 175/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit Circle-4(3)(2) M/S Svg Fashions Ltd. R.No. 649, 6Th Floor, 235, Shree Venkateshwar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Kalabadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aaacd1621K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rahul Bagaria (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner

For Appellant: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Bagaria (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…dustrial development and removing backwardness of the area that lagged behind in industrial development is to be treated as capital receipt. 8. Ld. A.R. also submitted that similar view was given in following decisions:- DCIT –vs.- Reliance Industries (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum.)(SB); CIT –vs.- Chaphalkar Brothers (2013) 351 ITR 309 (Bom.); CIT –vs.- Birla VXL Ltd. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC); Hydro Carbons & Chemicals –vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982-86/Kol/09 dated 29.04.2011); Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. –vs.- ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT). 9. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the o…

ACIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol

Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

…fundamental importance than the fact that the exemption/subsidy was received after the commencement of production or conditional upon it. (Please refer Para 37 at page 312 of the Order of Hon'ble Bench in the case of DCIT V. Reliance Industries Limited (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mum)(SB)). 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer further noted that the Punjab Scheme is Different from Maharashtra scheme as the eligibility period under Punjab scheme is counted from the date of commencement of commercial production i.e. commercial sale of product. In this connection it is submitted that the under both the schemes the assessee is entit…