Sadichha Chitra v. CIT

189 ITR 774High Court1991#7032 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 43(1)written down valueblock of assetsrevenue expendituresection 115jsection 115jbsection 43section 115section 11section 143transfercompany

Judgments citing Sadichha Chitra v. CIT

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…es as to whether the sales tax subsidy received from the State Government under the Scheme is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. 3.7.1. Capital receipt not subject to tax: The Bombay High Court, being Jurisdictional High Court, in Sadichha Chitra V/s. CIT (189 ITR 774) while dealing with the question as to whether the receipt is revenue receipt or capital receipt held as under: “If an amount received by an assessee could not be characterised as a trade receipt and was in the nature of a grant made by the Government not amounting to a trade receipt, receipt of such grant by the assessee- firm could not constitu…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…es as to whether the sales tax subsidy received from the State Government under the Scheme is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. 3.7.1. Capital receipt not subject to tax: The Bombay High Court, being Jurisdictional High Court, in Sadichha Chitra V/s. CIT (189 ITR 774) while dealing with the question as to whether the receipt is revenue receipt or capital receipt held as under: “If an amount received by an assessee could not be characterised as a trade receipt and was in the nature of a grant made by the Government not amounting to a trade receipt, receipt of such grant by the assessee- firm could not constitu…

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

…he Kerala's High Court came to the conclusion that the subsidy given for replanting of old rubber trees cannot be included as a revenue receipt of the rubber company. 27. Our attention was drawn to the case of Sadichha Chitra . V. Commissioner of Income Tax, 189 ITR 774. In that case, was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest witho…

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2013 – 14 is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee for the same year as well as for the assessment year 2014 – ...

ITA 7271/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sudal Industries Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 26, Nariman Bhavan, 227, 3(3)(2), Room No. 638, 6Th Nariman Point, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mubai-400 021 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs0705K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM The Dy. Commissioner of Sudal Industries Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 26, Nariman Bhavan, 227, 3(3)(2), room No. 638, 6th Nariman Point, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mubai-400 021 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACS0705K ITA Nos. 129/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) ITA Nos. 130/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner of Sudal Industries Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 26, Nariman Bhavan, 227, 3(3)(2), room No. 638, 6th Nariman Point, Vs…

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

…s of which the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that the subsidy given for replanting of old rubber trees cannot be included as a revenue receipt of the rubber company. 27. Our attention was drawn to the case of Sadichha Chitrav. CIT 189 ITR 774 . In that case, it was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest w…

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

…s of which the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that the subsidy given for replanting of old rubber trees cannot be included as a revenue receipt of the rubber company. 27. Our attention was drawn to the case of Sadichha Chitrav. CIT 189 ITR 774 . In that case, it was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest w…

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

…DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 467/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2009-10) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6 Vasank Kunj New Delhi New Delhi AAACM0829Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. Tejasvi Adv Respondent by Shr. G. C. Srivastava, Adv, Sh. Sanjay Kr. Dass, DR. Date of Hearing 27.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 against the ord…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 559/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…to be contribution towards capital outlay of the industry. Therefore, it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee in that case could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. In the case of Sadichha Chitra . V. Commissioner of Income Tax, 189 ITR 774. In that case, was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest with…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 558/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…to be contribution towards capital outlay of the industry. Therefore, it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee in that case could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. In the case of Sadichha Chitra . V. Commissioner of Income Tax, 189 ITR 774. In that case, was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest with…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 557/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…to be contribution towards capital outlay of the industry. Therefore, it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee in that case could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. In the case of Sadichha Chitra . V. Commissioner of Income Tax, 189 ITR 774. In that case, was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest with…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 556/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…to be contribution towards capital outlay of the industry. Therefore, it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee in that case could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. In the case of Sadichha Chitra . V. Commissioner of Income Tax, 189 ITR 774. In that case, was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest with…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 555/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…to be contribution towards capital outlay of the industry. Therefore, it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee in that case could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. In the case of Sadichha Chitra . V. Commissioner of Income Tax, 189 ITR 774. In that case, was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest with…

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

ITA 405/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

…to be contribution towards capital outlay of the industry. Therefore, it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee in that case could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. In the case of Sadichha Chitra . V. Commissioner of Income Tax, 189 ITR 774. In that case, was noted that in a given case subsidy may be granted with the object of supplementing trade receipts and profits of the recipient. In another case, the scheme of subsidy may have been formulated by the authority to assist the assessee in acquiring a capital asset or for the growth of the industry generally in public interest with…

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 1875/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 80I

…relying on the 46 M/s. Saf Yeast Company Private Limited decisions in the case of CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals (210 ITR 830) Stated that the subsidy is not deductible from actual cost. Further, it also relied on the decision in the case of Sadichha Chitra vs. CIT (189 ITR 774) (Bombay) stating that the grant received by the appellant is not taxable as revenue receipt but is a capital receipt. Decision: 10.0 I have carefully examined the facts of the case, the stand taken by the A.O in the assessment order, the grounds of appeal and the written submissions filed by the appellant during the hearing proceedings. 10.1 T…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLHAPUR vs. M/S CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS PUNE

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed

C.A. No.-006513-006514 - 2012Supreme Court07 Dec 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 3Section 3(13)

…dies must be treated as assistance for the purpose of the trade.” Thereafter, the Court went on to discuss certain High Court judgments and, in para 30, specifically referred to the Bombay High Court judgment in Sadichha Chitra's case (1991) 189 ITR 774 and approved the view taken by the Bombay and Kerala High Courts as they accorded with the principle laid down in Seaham Harbour Dock Co. case. The facts in Sahney steel were distinguished from the facts of the Bombay and Kerala judgments as follows:- “In the case before us, subsidies have not been granted for producti…

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

…IT : 260 ITR 601, CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal in ITA: 472 of 2010 (P&H), CIT vs. Siya Ram Garg ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 (HUF): 237 CTR 21 (P&H), CIT vs. Talbros Engineering Ltd. : 386 ITR 154 (P&H), Chaphalkar Brothers: 351 ITR 309 (Bom.), Sadichha Chitra vs. CIT: 189 ITR 774 (Bom.), CIT vs Rasoi Ltd.: 335 ITR 438 (Cal.), CIT vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd.: 238 ITR 445 (Cal.), CIT vs. Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.: 263 ITR 388 (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 Au…