Kalpana Palace v. CIT

275 ITR 365High Court2005#17484 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JAASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 28(iv)Section 43(1)

Judgments citing Kalpana Palace v. CIT

Jt.Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Satara vs. Kute Sons Dairys Limited, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 226/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(1)

…of profit generation or 9 ITA.No.226/PUN./2024 revenue for assessee, said amount received by assessee could not be termed to be revenue receipt. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below: "14. In Kalpana Place v CIT [2004] 141 Taxman 392/ [2005] 275 ITR 365, the Allahabad High Court examined the fall out of the grant-in-aid and incentives etc. provided by the government. It was held that grant-in-aid received by assessee, in that case, was capital receipt. The grant-in-aid, in that case, was provided by the State Government for construction of permanent Cinema Halls during a specified period. The C…

Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3890/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…o,3890&4364/5063&5483/5165&5043/5166&5044/Mum/2016 M/s. Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363)(SC); CIT vs. India Discount Co.Ltd. (75 ITR 191) (SC); Bhor Industries vs. CIT (264 ITR 180) (Bom); and Kalpana Palace V/s. CIT 275 ITR 365 8.2.13 One can, therefore, safely conclude from the aforesaid judgments and circulars of the Board that the taxability of the incentive received by way of subsidy, reimbursement or exemption has to be determined keeping in mind the purpose/object for which it has been granted. If the subsidy, reimbursement or remission or exemption has been grant…

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)

…t 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. 2. The Al1ahabad High Court in Kalpana Palace V. CIT (275 ITR 365) where it was held that grant-in-aid received from State Government for setting up cinema theatres in backward areas, though such receipt was after the business had set -up, would constitute' capital receipt' . 3. Universal Cables Ltd. v. DCIT [2015) 57 taxmann.com 95 in context of same scheme i.e. Madhya Pradesh Industrial Investment Promotion…

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

…pronouncements: (i) CIT-vs.- Balrampur Chinni Mills Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 445 (Cal.) (ii) DCIT-vs.- Reliance Industries Ltd. (2004) 88 ITO 273 (Mum.)(SB) (iii) CIT-vs.- Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 87 (SC) (iv) Kalpana Palace-vs.- CIT (2005) 275 ITR 365 (All) (v) ITO-vs.- Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. (2006) 101 TT J 224 (Ahd.) (vi) CIT-vs.-Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1989) 178 ITR 181 (Ker)(FB) 6. The AO however rejected the plea of the Assessee for regarding interest subsidies as in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to tax for the reason that under both the schemes, the assessee is eli…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Nikmo Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 53/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.53/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) D.C.I.T. – 9)2), M/S Nikmo Finance Pvt. बनाम/ 2 Nd Floor,Room No. 218 Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Point, M.K. Road, 349, 8 Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aabcn9974G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey
Section 143(3)

…ipt was treated as a capital receipt. Jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT has in the case of Associated Cement Co Ltd V Addl. CIT (2011-TIOL-212- ITAT-Mum) held that transport subsidy given by the State Govt. is capital receipt. In the case of Kalpana Palace v. CIT (275 ITR 365) H’ble Alahabad High Court held that even though grant-in- aid was given after the business of cinema halls was set up ITA 53/Mum/2014 11 in backward area, it was still relatable to the construction of cinema halls and was a capital receipt. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal in the appellant’s own case for A Y 2009-10 has allowed…

Kalpana Palace v. CIT (275 ITR 365) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax