Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT

228 ITR 253Supreme Court of India1997#166 most cited

What is Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

429

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT · subsidy revenue receipt · capital receipt · taxability of subsidies · Section 2(24)(xviii) · Section 37(1) · purpose of subsidy · obligation to spend · income tax treatment of subsidies

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 37(1)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 43(1)section 40(a)(ii)book profitsdeduction under section 80iablock of assetssection 80hhcadditional depreciationwritten down valuesection 139(5)section 80hhsection 2(24)

Judgments citing Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT

Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5927/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)

…issue in detail in para 54 and 55 of its decision, which reads as under:— "54. Per contra, the learned D.R. Supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). Referring to the judgment in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited v. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), he submitted that the impugned sales tax exemption increased the profits of the assessee by eliminating the expenses which the assessee would have had to incur later and therefore the impugned receipts were in the revenue field. He also referred to Explanation (10) to Section 43 (1) of the Income Tax Act inserted in with effect from 01/04/9…

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formelry Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5883/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)

…issue in detail in para 54 and 55 of its decision, which reads as under:— "54. Per contra, the learned D.R. Supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). Referring to the judgment in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited v. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), he submitted that the impugned sales tax exemption increased the profits of the assessee by eliminating the expenses which the assessee would have had to incur later and therefore the impugned receipts were in the revenue field. He also referred to Explanation (10) to Section 43 (1) of the Income Tax Act inserted in with effect from 01/04/9…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…n, the decisive factor for considering the nature of subsidy as a capital or revenue receipt is the „purpose‟ for which the subsidy has been granted and not the manner of its disbursal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steels and Press Works vs. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253(SC) has held in the facts of that case that the operational subsidy received after the commencement of business was a revenue receipt but simultaneously laid down the ratio decidendi of applying the ‘purpose test’ for ascertaining the true nature of subsidy. The purpose test has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…n, the decisive factor for considering the nature of subsidy as a capital or revenue receipt is the „purpose‟ for which the subsidy has been granted and not the manner of its disbursal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steels and Press Works vs. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253(SC) has held in the facts of that case that the operational subsidy received after the commencement of business was a revenue receipt but simultaneously laid down the ratio decidendi of applying the ‘purpose test’ for ascertaining the true nature of subsidy. The purpose test has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…n, the decisive factor for considering the nature of subsidy as a capital or revenue receipt is the „purpose‟ for which the subsidy has been granted and not the manner of its disbursal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steels and Press Works vs. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253(SC) has held in the facts of that case that the operational subsidy received after the commencement of business was a revenue receipt but simultaneously laid down the ratio decidendi of applying the ‘purpose test’ for ascertaining the true nature of subsidy. The purpose test has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars…

M/S.Cholamandalam Finanial Holdings Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu Circle - 2, Chennai

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2505/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1 2010-11 Cholamandalam Financial Holdings Ltd. 2 2012-13 (Formerly Known As Ti Financial Holdings Ltd. Dcit Erstwhile Called As Tube Ltu Circle-2, 3 2013-14 Investments Of India Ltd.) Chennai. No.234, Nsc Bose Road, 4. 2014-15 Dare House, Parry’S Corner, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaact-1249-H]

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…n, the decisive factor for considering the nature of subsidy as a capital or revenue receipt is the „purpose‟ for which the subsidy has been granted and not the manner of its disbursal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steels and Press Works vs. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253(SC) has held in the facts of that case that the operational subsidy received after the commencement of business was a revenue receipt but simultaneously laid down the ratio decidendi of applying the ‘purpose test’ for ascertaining the true nature of subsidy. The purpose test has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars…

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5250/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…e Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited 306 ITR 392 had the occasion to consider the taxability of incentive bestowed on new / expanded sugar factories and the Hon’ble Supreme Court following Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 held that the subsidy received by the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt since the object behind the same was to assist entrepreneurs in setting up of new unit/ expansion of existing business. 27. In the light of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). We are of the considered view that the purpose for which the incentiv…

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5249/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…e Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited 306 ITR 392 had the occasion to consider the taxability of incentive bestowed on new / expanded sugar factories and the Hon’ble Supreme Court following Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 held that the subsidy received by the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt since the object behind the same was to assist entrepreneurs in setting up of new unit/ expansion of existing business. 27. In the light of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). We are of the considered view that the purpose for which the incentiv…

M/S. Jindal (India0 Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5248/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…e Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited 306 ITR 392 had the occasion to consider the taxability of incentive bestowed on new / expanded sugar factories and the Hon’ble Supreme Court following Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 held that the subsidy received by the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt since the object behind the same was to assist entrepreneurs in setting up of new unit/ expansion of existing business. 27. In the light of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). We are of the considered view that the purpose for which the incentiv…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…ction of the Assessing Officer in making the said addition and also the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s case for A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd 228 ITR 253 (SC) & Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd 306 ITR 392 which held that subsidy received in respect of octroi is not a capital receipt. 52. The Ld.AR contended that the impugned octroi incentive received under the “package scheme of incentives 1993”announced by the Government of Maharashtra for moving industries to certain backward areas of Maharashtra i…

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…ction of the Assessing Officer in making the said addition and also the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s case for A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd 228 ITR 253 (SC) & Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd 306 ITR 392 which held that subsidy received in respect of octroi is not a capital receipt. 52. The Ld.AR contended that the impugned octroi incentive received under the “package scheme of incentives 1993”announced by the Government of Maharashtra for moving industries to certain backward areas of Maharashtra i…

ACIT Cent. Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2550/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997) 94 [1997) 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7.…

ACIT- CC -3, Mumbai vs. Aym Syntex Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2549/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997) 94 [1997) 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7.…

Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2342/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997) 94 [1997) 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7.…

M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cent Cir-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2341/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997) 94 [1997) 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7.…

Aym Syntex Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2340/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 [2008) 174 Taxman 87/306 /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT /TR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997) 94 [1997) 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of Taxman 368/228 ITR 253. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the amount was recei the opinion that the amount was received as capital stream and ved as capital stream and therefore, not taxable. therefore, not taxable. 7.…

ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Jindal Poly Films Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7511/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…opted by the Assessee, and without determining/testing the purpose of scheme of the subsidies/incentives and the status of the said subsidies whether the same are capital or revenue in nature as mandated in the case of Sahney Steel and Press works Versus CIT {228 ITR 253},decided the tax liability of the Assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. In our considered view, the authorities below should have first determined as to whether Subsidies/Incentives received by the Assesseeare ‘revenue’ or ‘capital’ in nature and after determination of the same, should have decided the tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act, but not otherwi…

Jindal Poly Films Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 7464/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

…opted by the Assessee, and without determining/testing the purpose of scheme of the subsidies/incentives and the status of the said subsidies whether the same are capital or revenue in nature as mandated in the case of Sahney Steel and Press works Versus CIT {228 ITR 253},decided the tax liability of the Assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. In our considered view, the authorities below should have first determined as to whether Subsidies/Incentives received by the Assesseeare ‘revenue’ or ‘capital’ in nature and after determination of the same, should have decided the tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act, but not otherwi…

ACIT, Central Circle, Moradabad vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahamedabad

ITA 9516/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…15JB in circumstances when these receipts have been received after commencement of production and are of revenue character and therefore have to be taxed accordingly as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs CIT [228 ITR 253 (SC)], CIT Vs Bhushan Steel & Strips 3981TR 216 (Delhi) and CIT Vs Raasi Cements 351 ITR 169 (AP). 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions on account of Sales Tax Subsidy of Rs.12,74,46,4801- and Excise Duty incentive of Rs.7,90,94,513/- made for the purpose of income computation u/s 115JB…

ACIT, Central Circle, Moradabad vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahamedabad

ITA 9515/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…15JB in circumstances when these receipts have been received after commencement of production and are of revenue character and therefore have to be taxed accordingly as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs CIT [228 ITR 253 (SC)], CIT Vs Bhushan Steel & Strips 3981TR 216 (Delhi) and CIT Vs Raasi Cements 351 ITR 169 (AP). 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions on account of Sales Tax Subsidy of Rs.12,74,46,4801- and Excise Duty incentive of Rs.7,90,94,513/- made for the purpose of income computation u/s 115JB…