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.

How many judgments cite Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT?

429 judgments on BharatTax cite Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (228 ITR 253), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 2(24)(xviii), Section 37(1), Section 32.

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (228 ITR 253)

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…IAE in preference to others. This is the purpose. 33.13. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., 306 ITR 392 (SC) after considering the decision in the case of Sahney Steels and Press Work Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT, 228 ITR 253 (SC) has observed as under :- “The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Work’s Ltd.’s case (supra) lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applied in judging the character of a subsidy. That test is that the character of the receipt in the hands…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…IAE in preference to others. This is the purpose. 33.13. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., 306 ITR 392 (SC) after considering the decision in the case of Sahney Steels and Press Work Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT, 228 ITR 253 (SC) has observed as under :- “The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Work’s Ltd.’s case (supra) lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applied in judging the character of a subsidy. That test is that the character of the receipt in the hands…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…IAE in preference to others. This is the purpose. 33.13. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., 306 ITR 392 (SC) after considering the decision in the case of Sahney Steels and Press Work Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT, 228 ITR 253 (SC) has observed as under :- “The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Work’s Ltd.’s case (supra) lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applied in judging the character of a subsidy. That test is that the character of the receipt in the hands…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…IAE in preference to others. This is the purpose. 33.13. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., 306 ITR 392 (SC) after considering the decision in the case of Sahney Steels and Press Work Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT, 228 ITR 253 (SC) has observed as under :- “The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Work’s Ltd.’s case (supra) lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applied in judging the character of a subsidy. That test is that the character of the receipt in the hands…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…IAE in preference to others. This is the purpose. 33.13. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., 306 ITR 392 (SC) after considering the decision in the case of Sahney Steels and Press Work Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT, 228 ITR 253 (SC) has observed as under :- “The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Work’s Ltd.’s case (supra) lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to be applied in judging the character of a subsidy. That test is that the character of the receipt in the hands…

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1493/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajaram Maize Products reported in 251 ITR 427 (SC) and in the case of M/s Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 228 ITR 253 (SC). According to him, particularly in relation to power subsidy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held it to be revenue in nature and therefore taxable. So, he pleaded that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue may be reversed and AO’s view to be upheld. 27. Per contra, the Ld. A.R submitted that the issue of taxability of subsidy being treated a…

ACIT, Circle- 14(2), New Delhi vs. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 115J

…06 ITR 392) held the subsidy in the form of sales tax exemption, water tax exemption etc to be on revenue account as it enabled the' assessee to carry on its business more profitably and competitively, whereas in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253) the subsidy was paid for repayment of outstanding loans which were capital in nature and hence it was held to be the capital receipt.” We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded a finding on fact that the amount of the fertilizers bonds (subsidy) has been declared as a revenue receipt in the respective assessment years. This finding on facts is n…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3490/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 115J

…06 ITR 392) held the subsidy in the form of sales tax exemption, water tax exemption etc to be on revenue account as it enabled the' assessee to carry on its business more profitably and competitively, whereas in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253) the subsidy was paid for repayment of outstanding loans which were capital in nature and hence it was held to be the capital receipt.” We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded a finding on fact that the amount of the fertilizers bonds (subsidy) has been declared as a revenue receipt in the respective assessment years. This finding on facts is n…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3489/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

Section 115J

…06 ITR 392) held the subsidy in the form of sales tax exemption, water tax exemption etc to be on revenue account as it enabled the' assessee to carry on its business more profitably and competitively, whereas in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253) the subsidy was paid for repayment of outstanding loans which were capital in nature and hence it was held to be the capital receipt.” We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded a finding on fact that the amount of the fertilizers bonds (subsidy) has been declared as a revenue receipt in the respective assessment years. This finding on facts is n…

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

…subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt not liable to be taxed within the meaning of section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. This Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 1 (SC) has held that power subsidies are of revenue nature and have to be taxed accordingly. We also find that the terms under which the subsidy was given in the present cases clearly suggest that the subsidy was of a revenue nature inasmuch as it went towards reduction of the electricity bills.” CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hy…

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

…subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt not liable to be taxed within the meaning of section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. This Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 1 (SC) has held that power subsidies are of revenue nature and have to be taxed accordingly. We also find that the terms under which the subsidy was given in the present cases clearly suggest that the subsidy was of a revenue nature inasmuch as it went towards reduction of the electricity bills.” CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hy…

A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Kamarhatty Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…6.4 Mini Mission-IV, Phase II, was on capital account and the same is confirmed. And in the light of the aforesaid finding of fact, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Sawhney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT Vs. Pony Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the principle of examining the nature of subsidy receipt in the hands of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the under lying principle in such cases is to examine “purpose” for which the subsidy is granted. The taxability of the subsidy…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 737/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115VSection 14A

…ra and such subsidy has been granted for investing in backward area and hence, it is in the nature of capital subsidy, cannot brought to tax. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., 228 ITR 253. The AO however was not accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, subsidy received from Government is in the nature of assistance given to companies in carrying on trade or business and hence it is in the nature of revenue receipt and liable for tax. The AO has considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras…

DCIT-2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115VSection 14A

…ra and such subsidy has been granted for investing in backward area and hence, it is in the nature of capital subsidy, cannot brought to tax. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., 228 ITR 253. The AO however was not accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, subsidy received from Government is in the nature of assistance given to companies in carrying on trade or business and hence it is in the nature of revenue receipt and liable for tax. The AO has considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras…

DCIT, Corporate Circle -2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115VSection 14A

…ra and such subsidy has been granted for investing in backward area and hence, it is in the nature of capital subsidy, cannot brought to tax. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., 228 ITR 253. The AO however was not accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, subsidy received from Government is in the nature of assistance given to companies in carrying on trade or business and hence it is in the nature of revenue receipt and liable for tax. The AO has considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras…

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2038/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115VSection 14A

…ra and such subsidy has been granted for investing in backward area and hence, it is in the nature of capital subsidy, cannot brought to tax. In this regard, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., 228 ITR 253. The AO however was not accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, subsidy received from Government is in the nature of assistance given to companies in carrying on trade or business and hence it is in the nature of revenue receipt and liable for tax. The AO has considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras…

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld

Section 2(24)

…r repayment of loan taken for purchase of plant and machineries, whereas in assessee's case the issue pertains to the receipt of certain percentage as interest subsidy incentive. Revenue is placing reliance on Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd vs CIT (SC) (1997) 228 ITR 253 and The JCIT vs. Colourman Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat HC)2015 ITL 1036. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law , Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the Finance Bill 2015 has been enacted to further enlarge the scope of the definition of 'Income' by inserting clause (xv…

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)

…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…

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250

…be a ‘capital receipt’ not liable to to be a ‘capital receipt’ not liable to tax. Reliance was placed on Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited vs. CIT [(1997) 228 ITR 253] Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited vs. CIT [(1997) 228 ITR 253] Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited vs. CIT [(1997) 228 ITR 253] and the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Stewarts & CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. [(1987) 165 ITR 416] Lloyds of India Ltd. [(198…

Jsw Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - CC - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2503/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Jsw Steel Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bandra Kurla Complex Income Tax, Bandra (E) Central -4 Room No.663, 6Th Floor Mumbai- 400 051 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaacj4323N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By Ms. Leena Shrivastav Date Of Hearing 06/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2021

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act and the order of ld. PCIT is wrong and deserved to quashed . The ld AR submitted that the decisions 6 M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., reported in 228 ITR 253 and Ponni Sugar Chemicals (306 ITR 392) are not applicable to the present case as the issue involved in those decisions were that of subsidy. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra as the same is squarely covered by the decision Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sulzer India Ltd., (369 ITR 177)(Bom) an…

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., Kolkata

ACIT, Circle- 14(2), New Delhi vs. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Medha Servo Drives Private Limited, Hyderabad

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Cirlce-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Medha Servo Drives Private Limited, Hyderabad

A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Kamarhatty Company Limited, Kolkata

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

DCIT-2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd, Chennai

DCIT, Corporate Circle -2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

Jsw Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - CC - 4, Mumbai