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 367,154 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.

M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 528/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…

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

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

ITA 981/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2004-05

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…

Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 938/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2004-05

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…

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

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

ITA 530/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2003-04

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…

Vardhman Textile Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 475/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2003-04

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…

ACIT, Ludhiana vs. Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana

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

ITA 691/CHANDI/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2002-03

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…

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

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

ITA 681/CHANDI/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2002-03

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…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7062/MUM/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

…uded that the sales tax incentive granted under the U.P. Government scheme being operational subsidy has to be treated as revenue receipt. Accordingly, he distinguished the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal rendered in DCIT v/s Reliance Industries Ltd., (88 ITD 273), which was relied upon by the assessee. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee, however, upheld the view of the Assessing Officer. 6. Shri J.D. Mistry, learned Sr. Co…

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…Industries Ltd., i.e. 1979 scheme was identical to the 1993 scheme. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., (Supra) in the appeal filed by Revenue against the order of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal reported in (2004) 88 ITD 273 (SB) (Mum) have held that the subsidy received under the 1979 scheme for setting up new units in backward areas was a capital receipt. Applying the same ratio to the facts of the ITA No.1880/PN/2013 Rohit Exhaust Systems Pvt. Ltd present case, we are in conformity with the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the grant of Rs.30 lakhs received by th…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…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 the issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s ow…

The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1716/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N K Pradhan, Am The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar Pan No.Aaact2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N K PRADHAN, AM The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar PAN No.AAACT2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. Shri Yogesh A. Thar & Shri D Doshi Ms. Rity Punjabi Ms. Ayushi Madani, Anrs Revenue by .. Shri Jayant Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 18-08-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 27-10-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is aris…

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

…achinery. Such subsidy I.T.A. No.4475/Mum/2007 6 and 7 other appeals is in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. It was contended that the said issue was considered by Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y 1986-87 reported at 88 ITD 273(SB) and the Tribunal confirmed its earlier decision in assessee's own case for assessment years 1984-85 and 85-86 that the sales tax subsidy granted to the assessee is in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. It was contended that the Tribunal also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press W…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…ipt in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai bench in its own case for A.Yrs 2004-05 to 2006-07 and the decision of CIT(A) in A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee also relied onto the decisions in cases of Sahani Steels [228 ITR 253 (SC). Reliance Industries Ltd [88 ITD 273 (ITAT, Spl. Bench Mumbai)], Ponni Sugars Chemicals Ltd [2008 TIDL 174-SC-IT]. However, the AO observed that as per the relevant sales tax incentive schemes the assessee was not required to charge any sales tax from its customers and/or to pay any purchase tax on its purchase for a particular period, subject to overall limit based on capital invest…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

…tted that similar view was given in following decisions :- - JCIT(OSD) -vs.- M/s. Keventer Agro Ltd (IT A No. 1663- 1665/KoV2011 dtd. 30-06- 2014) - DCIT - vs.- Ankit India Ltd. (ITA. No. 1330/Kol/2010 dtd. 16-11-2010] - 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) 9. We have given a very careful consideration of the rival submissions. As far as the interest subsidy received by the assessee under TUFS is concerned, we find that in assessee’s own case in A.Y.2006-07 in ITA No.94/Kol/2011…

ACIT Cir 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Narendra Vegetable Products P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4575/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Rejesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Appeal Nos.4575-4577/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit Cir 4(3) (1) Vs. M/S Narendra Vegetable R.No.649, 6Th Floor Products Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Central Building No. 3, Master Bomanji Lane, Kalbadevi Mumbai – 400 002 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn1227G अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant By : Smt Beena Santosh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…to certain ceilings prescribed therein. 6 M/s Narendra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos. 4575 - 4577/Mum/2016 12.2. This very scheme of Government of Maharashtra was duly considered by special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB), relevant portion reproduced : “The scheme framed by the Government of Maharashtra in 1979 and formulated by its resolution dated 5-1-1980 had been analysed in detail by the Tribunal in its order in the assessee’s case for the earlier assessment year i.e., 1985-86. On an analysis of the scheme, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion th…

Svg Fashion Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1217/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ustrial 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). ITA Nos.5644/11, ITA No.8565/M/10 & ITA Nos.296&4154/12 13 9. Ld. Depa…

Regen Powertech Private Lmited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 786/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

…ia (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) (156 TTJ 1) that assessee received capital subsidy under a scheme for accelerating industrial development in State, same could not be taxed as a Revenue receipt. Further in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited (2004) (88 ITD 273) (Mum) (SB) it was held that if subsidy was given for expansion/setting up of industry in backward area, it will be capital irrespective of modality or sources of funds through from which it is given’’ and the in the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers (33 Taxmann.com 431) it was held that the ‘’purposes for which subsidy is given is relevant f…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Regen Powertech (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 766/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Anuragh Sahay, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)

…ia (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) (156 TTJ 1) that assessee received capital subsidy under a scheme for accelerating industrial development in State, same could not be taxed as a Revenue receipt. Further in the case of DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited (2004) (88 ITD 273) (Mum) (SB) it was held that if subsidy was given for expansion/setting up of industry in backward area, it will be capital irrespective of modality or sources of funds through from which it is given’’ and the in the case of CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers (33 Taxmann.com 431) it was held that the ‘’purposes for which subsidy is given is relevant f…

Prestress Wire Industries, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 12(1), Mumbai

ITA 6467/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi, D.S. Kabra-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6467/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Prestress Wire…

Solaris Chemtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5202/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Solaris Chemtech Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Now Amalgated With Solaris Circle-9(1), Chemtech Industries Ltd.), New Delhi. Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacb8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd., Circle 9(1), (Now Amalgated With Solaris New Delhi. Chemtech Industries Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacb8394B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav,Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18:07.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav,AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 115J

…s what is interesting—“a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the Crown and raised by special taxation.” 15. It is next submitted that assessee seeks to rely on the judgment of Special Bench in the case of Reliance Industries reported in 88 ITD 273(SB), wherein it has been held that subsidy given for setting up or expansion of industries will be capital in nature irrespective of source of fund or the manner of disbursement. This decision has now been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs Reliance Industries reported in 339 ITR 0632(Bom). In this case the Hon’ble Special Benc…