Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. L.H. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.

392 ITR 568High Court2017#4560 most cited

What is Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. L.H. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Income from the sale of carbon credits is capital in nature. This classification is supported by judicial precedent.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. L.H. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. · 392 ITR 568 · Allahabad High Court · carbon credits · income from sale of carbon credits · capital in nature · Section 80-IA

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. L.H. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.

Bajaj Finserv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Large Texpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY

ITA 4223/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Bajaj Finserv Limited, बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner 226,Bajaj Bhawan, Of Income Tax – Large Vs. 2 Flr,Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Taxpayer Unit, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy j Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 244ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Bajaj Finserv Limited, बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner 226,Bajaj Bhawan, of Income Tax – Large Vs. 2 flr,Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Taxpayer Unit, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCB2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Percy j Pardiwalla, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 09/04/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronou…

Malpani Tea Corporation, Sangamner vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

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

ITA 2181/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2181/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Malpani Tea Corporation, S.No.150, Malpani House, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aacfd1713B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-3, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Pune Dated 20.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income On Sale Of Certified Emission Reduction / Carbon Credit Was Taxable As Profits & Gains Of The Assessee & Thereby, Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,003 /- In The Hands Of The Assessee. 2] The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Received By The Assessee On Sale Of Certified Emission Reduction / Carbon Credit Was A Capital Receipt In The Hands Of The Assessee Which Was Not Taxable At All. 3] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Amount Received On Sale Of Certified Emission Reduction / Carbon Credit Was A Benefit Derived During The Course Of The Business Of The Assessee & Therefore, The Same Was Taxable U/S 28(Iv) R.W.S. 2(24)(Vd). 4] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Certified Emission Reduction / Carbon Credit Was Received By The Assessee On Account Of Environmental Concerns & Not Arising Out Of The Business Carried Out & Hence, The Same Could Not Be Treated As An Income Of The Assessee U/S 28(Iv) R.W.S. 2(24)(Vd).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 28Section 80I

…2016) 385 ITR 592 (Karn) and followed by lgc 2 of 3 (16) itxa- 1820.16ors.doc Allahabad High Court and Rajasthan High Court, (Allahabad High Court decision is in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. L Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 392 ITR 568 (All)). 5 In view of such consistent view of the different High Courts in the country, we see no reason to take a different stand. No question of law arises in these Appeals. Hence not entertained. The Income Tax Appeals are dismissed.” 5. Considering the above binding judgement (supra) as well as the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tri…