What is Punjab & Haryana in CIT v. Talbros Engineering Ltd. authority for?

A sales tax subsidy given by a state government to encourage industries to set up units in remote or rural areas is a capital receipt.

Punjab & Haryana in CIT v. Talbros Engineering Ltd. (386 ITR 154)

Q: How many judgments cite Punjab & Haryana in CIT v. Talbros Engineering Ltd.?

20 judgments on BharatTax cite Punjab & Haryana in CIT v. Talbros Engineering Ltd. (386 ITR 154), spanning 2017 to 2022.

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 577/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 147Section 36Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 577/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Darpan Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/s K.K. Rubber Industries, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar Kapurthala Road, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar [PAN: AFEPJ 7026E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the ord…

ITO 19 (3)(5), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL A. BHANSALI (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 501/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Vishal A. Bhansali (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Room No. 201, Matru Vs. C/121, Grand Paradi, August Mandir, Tardeo Road, Kranti Marg, Mumbai-7 Mumbai-400036. Pan No. Acppb 3499 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, ARFor Respondent: Mr. N.K. Mohnot, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Vishal A. Bhansali (HUF), 2nd floor, Room No. 201, Matru Vs. C/121, Grand Paradi, August Mandir, Tardeo Road, Kranti Marg, Mumbai-7 Mumbai-400036. PAN No. ACPPB 3499 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. N.K. Mohnot, DR Assessee by : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, AR Date of Hearing : 15/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 25/10/2021 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the…

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…7. Learned C.I.T (Appeals) referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar brothers (Supra) and also the decisions in the cases of CIT vs Ponni Sugars and chemicals ltd., 306 ITR 392 SC and Pr.CIT vs Talbros Engineering ltd., 386 ITR 154 P & H and held that since the assessee had received the sales tax reimbursement for expanding its manufacturing capacity, the said amount is a capital receipt and cannot be considered as income. The C.I.T (Appeals) allowed the appeals. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the C.I.T(Appeals}, Department has filed appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT. The as…

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. Shiva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…7. Learned C.I.T (Appeals) referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaphalkar brothers (Supra) and also the decisions in the cases of CIT vs Ponni Sugars and chemicals ltd., 306 ITR 392 SC and Pr.CIT vs Talbros Engineering ltd., 386 ITR 154 P & H and held that since the assessee had received the sales tax reimbursement for expanding its manufacturing capacity, the said amount is a capital receipt and cannot be considered as income. The C.I.T (Appeals) allowed the appeals. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the C.I.T(Appeals}, Department has filed appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT. The as…

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…called the 'purpose test' and that the point of time when the subsidy was paid was not relevant and so was so source of subsidy. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 154 (P&H) wherein it was held that sales tax subsidy given by the State Government for encouraging industries for setting up units in remote or rural areas was to be treated as capital receipt. Further in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd: [2015] 55 taxmann.com 26 (Del HC).…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…called the 'purpose test' and that the point of time when the subsidy was paid was not relevant and so was so source of subsidy. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 154 (P&H) wherein it was held that sales tax subsidy given by the State Government for encouraging industries for setting up units in remote or rural areas was to be treated as capital receipt. Further in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd: [2015] 55 taxmann.com 26 (Del HC).…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…called the 'purpose test' and that the point of time when the subsidy was paid was not relevant and so was so source of subsidy. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 154 (P&H) wherein it was held that sales tax subsidy given by the State Government for encouraging industries for setting up units in remote or rural areas was to be treated as capital receipt. Further in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd: [2015] 55 taxmann.com 26 (Del HC).…

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…called the 'purpose test' and that the point of time when the subsidy was paid was not relevant and so was so source of subsidy. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 154 (P&H) wherein it was held that sales tax subsidy given by the State Government for encouraging industries for setting up units in remote or rural areas was to be treated as capital receipt. Further in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd: [2015] 55 taxmann.com 26 (Del HC).…

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…called the 'purpose test' and that the point of time when the subsidy was paid was not relevant and so was so source of subsidy. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 154 (P&H) wherein it was held that sales tax subsidy given by the State Government for encouraging industries for setting up units in remote or rural areas was to be treated as capital receipt. Further in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd: [2015] 55 taxmann.com 26 (Del HC).…

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…called the 'purpose test' and that the point of time when the subsidy was paid was not relevant and so was so source of subsidy. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 154 (P&H) wherein it was held that sales tax subsidy given by the State Government for encouraging industries for setting up units in remote or rural areas was to be treated as capital receipt. Further in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P) Ltd: [2015] 55 taxmann.com 26 (Del HC).…

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

…v. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune : 400 ITR 279 (SC) • Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT : 402 ITR 309 (Del.) • Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P.) Ltd.: 373 ITR 14 (Del) • CIT vs. Siya Ram Garg (HUF): 237 CTR 21 (P&H) • CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd.: 386 ITR 154 (P&H) • CIT vs Rasoi Ltd.: 335 ITR 438 (Cal.) • DCIT vs. Inox Leisure Ltd.: 351 ITR 314 (Guj) • Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : 394 ITR 192 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Birla VXL Ltd.: 215 Taxman 117 (Guj.) • DCIT vs. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd.: 218 Taxman 135 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Samta Chavigarh: ITA No. 144 of 2007 (Raj)/ 222 Taxman 205 (Mag.) • Shiv…

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI JAGANNATH PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross

ITA 283/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-2014 DCIT, Circle -5(1), Vs. M/s. Sri Jagannath Bhubaneswar. Properties & Developers, Plot No. N-1, A-66, IRC Village, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.ABQFS 9305 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) C.O. No.05/CTK/2018 (arising out of ITA No.283/CTK/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14. M/s. Sri Jagannath Vs. DCIT, Circle -5(1), Properties & Developers, Bhubaneswar. Plot No. N-1, A-66, IRC Village, NayapaLi, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.ABQFS 9305 R (Appellant)…

DCIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S PADMAWATI STEEL LTD., SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 587/CHANDI/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Padmawati Steels Ltd., Circle , Sangrur Road, Dibra, Sangrur Distt.Sangrur Pan No. Aaccp3844Q

For Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Garg, Advocate

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 The DCIT, Vs. M/s Padmawati Steels Ltd., Circle , Sangrur Road, Dibra, Sangrur Distt.Sangrur PAN No. AACCP3844Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sh. N.K. Garg, Advocate Date of Hearing : 01.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05 .2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee order dated 31.3.2004 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Patiala [h…