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

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

ITA 9514/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
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 9513/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
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…

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2418/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
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…

DCIT Circle- 1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 554/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…rther the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmeer High Court while rendering its Judgment in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys -vs.- CIT (supra) had relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahnev Steel & Press Works - vs. - CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO & CIT - vs. - Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and after analyzing the Office Memorandum dated 14-06-2002 behind the grant of Incentive has held that Excise Duty refund granted with the object of creating avenues for Perpetual Employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated indu…

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 7791/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…rther the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmeer High Court while rendering its Judgment in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys -vs.- CIT (supra) had relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahnev Steel & Press Works - vs. - CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO & CIT - vs. - Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) and after analyzing the Office Memorandum dated 14-06-2002 behind the grant of Incentive has held that Excise Duty refund granted with the object of creating avenues for Perpetual Employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated indu…

Aurangabad Electricals Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.199/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.225/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L .......अऩी…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.199/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.225/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L .......अऩी…

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 570/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT
Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…noring the fact that the apex court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue without adjudicating on merits. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd Vs CIT reported in 228 ITR 253 wherein identical issues are involved. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the provisions of section 41(1) wherein VAT payments earlier claimed as deductions u/s.43B of the Act when got reimbursed, will partake nature of income in the hands of assessee. 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction towards corporate social respo…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai vs. Regen Powertech Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 476/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT
Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…noring the fact that the apex court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue without adjudicating on merits. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd Vs CIT reported in 228 ITR 253 wherein identical issues are involved. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the provisions of section 41(1) wherein VAT payments earlier claimed as deductions u/s.43B of the Act when got reimbursed, will partake nature of income in the hands of assessee. 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction towards corporate social respo…

Crystal Corp Protection Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3930/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

…s recurring in nature, (iv) it was not for purchasing capital assets and (v) it was for running the business profitably. On appeal by the assessee, the High Court (333 ITR 335) reversed the lower authorities and held as follows: (i) The ratio of Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 (SC), Ponni Sugars 306 ITR 392 (SC) and Mepco Industries 319 ITR 208 (SC) is that to determine whether incentives & subsidies are revenue or capital receipts, the purpose underlying the incentives is the determinative test. If the object of the subsidy scheme is to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on rev…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Barak Valley Cements Ltd

ITAT/145/2018HC Calcutta06 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 260ASection 80I

…remission and a rebate on sales tax. Therefore, the decision in H.M. Steels Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable on facts. While on this issue, we take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the nature of subsidy needs to be commissioned by the Court in each case. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (supra) would be of great relevance to the case on hand. The Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that when subsidy is given for the purpose of opera…

Narayan Industires, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6153/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 253

…the purpose for which the same is granted and not the form / mode / manner in which the incentive is received/ disbursed. The law in this regard fairly well settled and reference may be- made to the following decisions: • Salmey Steel and Press Works vs. CIT: 228 ITR 253 (SC) • CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited. 306 ITR 392 (SC) • CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers: 400 ITR 279 (SC) The purpose for which the incentives have been given, it is submitted, can be gauged from the objects and reasons behind introduction of the Policy. If the purpose of the incentive was to enable the assessee to run the business more…

ACIT, Circle - Tinsukia, Tinsukia vs. M/S. Greenply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…ITA No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘GUWAHATI BENCH’ AT KOLKATA, [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited,.......................................................Appellant Makum Road, P.O. Tinsukia, Assam-786125 [PAN: AAACG7284R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.....................................Respondent Circle-Tinsukia, Aayakar Bhawan,…

Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…ITA No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘GUWAHATI BENCH’ AT KOLKATA, [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 232/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited,.......................................................Appellant Makum Road, P.O. Tinsukia, Assam-786125 [PAN: AAACG7284R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.....................................Respondent Circle-Tinsukia, Aayakar Bhawan,…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Cheslind Textiles Ltd., Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5929/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5929/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Cheslind Textiles Ltd., Central Circle-31, Kharigram, P.B. No. 28, Post New Delhi-110055 Office-Gulabpura, Distt. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc2435K Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…& Kashmir High Court in the case Balaji Alloys Vs. CIT and taking into consideration the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 and Sahney Steel and Press 11 Cheslind TextilesLtd. Works Ltd. Vs. CIT 228 ITR 253, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to treat the same as capital receipt. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 01/06/2022. (Anubhav Sharma) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01/06/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik vs. Haldex India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik

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

ITA 852/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.852/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik Vs. Haldex India Pvt. Ltd., B-71, Midc, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabch9044B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar & Shri Viksit Bhargava Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik Dated 01.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Nashik Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,58,41,000/- Made U/S 28(Iv) Of The Act On Account Of Octroi Refund Treating It Revenue In Nature. 02. The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer May Be Restored. 03. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Onkar &For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 28

…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 Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 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 7 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 v. Ponni Sugars &…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2013-14 The Asstt. Cit Cir. 6, Pune. Appellant Vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto C-10 Abhimanshree Society, Baner Road, Pune-411008 Pan : Aajcs 8944F Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By : Shri R.G. Gawli Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2022 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri R.G. Gawli
Section 32Section 43(1)

…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…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97
Section 143(3)

…ommencement of commercial production and accordingly, it cannot be said that the subsidy so received would be in the capital field. He vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., reported in 228 ITR 253 wherein it was held that subsidy received after the commencement of business would be revenue receipt chargeable to tax. 4.6. The ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the cut-off date should be reckoned as the date of commencement of business and any subsidy or incentive received after that date shall be considered as a revenue rec…

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1669/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…etting up of the industry but after commencement of production for repayment of loan. In such situation, the amount should have been treated as revenue receipt, as per judgment of the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court in Sahne Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Ors. Ve CIT 997) 228 ITR 253. ITA No.95/Kol/2011 M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. A.Yr.2007-08. 3. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The purpose of scheme under which the subsidy is given, has been discussed by the Tribunal. To sustain and prove the competitiveness and overall long term viability of the textile industry, the concerned Ministry of Textile adopted the TU…

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1668/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…etting up of the industry but after commencement of production for repayment of loan. In such situation, the amount should have been treated as revenue receipt, as per judgment of the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court in Sahne Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Ors. Ve CIT 997) 228 ITR 253. ITA No.95/Kol/2011 M/s. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. A.Yr.2007-08. 3. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The purpose of scheme under which the subsidy is given, has been discussed by the Tribunal. To sustain and prove the competitiveness and overall long term viability of the textile industry, the concerned Ministry of Textile adopted the TU…