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 367,154 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ichalkaranji vs. Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal, Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 733/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in treating the Sales tax benefits i.e. Subsidy as capital receipt by ignoring the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Sawhney Steel & Press Works Ltd, (228 ITR 253) wherein the subsidy is treated as revenue receipt. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) 2, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant leave to add, alter, amend and modify the above grounds raised at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal. ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017 3 & CO Nos.…

DCIT, Sangrur vs. M/S Padmawati Steel Ltd., Sangrur

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

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

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Garg, Advocate
Section 80I

…eir units in rural areas and for compensating for the hardship in setting up such industries in remote rural areas. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as revenue by relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in Sahney Steel and Pass Works Limited vs. CIT, 228 ITR 253. The CIT(A) treated this amount as capital receipt holding that if the purpose of the subsidy was to help the assessee to set up its business or complete a project, the amounts must be treated to have been received for capital purpose. The Tribunal after considering the matter upheld the deletion made by the CIT(A) observing that if some subsidy…

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

…e by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt. The Tribunal affirmed the said view as follows…

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

…e by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt. The Tribunal affirmed the said view as follows…

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

…e by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt. The Tribunal affirmed the said view as follows…

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

…e by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt. The Tribunal affirmed the said view as follows…

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

…e by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt. The Tribunal affirmed the said view as follows…

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

…e by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (P&H) 304 : (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the subsidy was for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and same has to be treated as capital receipt. The Tribunal affirmed the said view as follows…

DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Cineline India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 5491/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Cineline India Ltd., 10Th Floor, 251, Atrium, Income Tax- 9(2)(2), C.T.S. No. 215, Room No. 665A, 6Th Floor, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400059 Pan : Aaccc1775F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Govind Javeri (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2018

For Appellant: Shri Govind Javeri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (DR)
Section 143

…ax collected and claimed as capital subsidy relying on the decision of the case of M/s Chaphalkar Brothers ITA No. 1342 & 1343 of 2006 (Bom) by ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT, 228 ITR 253 and Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392. 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT, Mumbai has decided this issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case, ITA No. 5718/M/2013 pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11. Since, the Ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue in the present…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Keventer Agro Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2091/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattcharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…bunal in assesee’s own case involving A.Ys. 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2005-06 vide its order dated 30.06.2014 and referred to para no.26 and argued that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal by placing reliance in the case of Sahaney Steel & Press Works Ltd vs CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC) held that the sales tax remission is a capital receipt and the assesee is entitled to claim the same as capital receipt and supported the order of CIT(A). 5. Heard rival submissions and perused materials on record. We find that the issue is covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case wherein the Tribunal on an examination o…

ACIT, Circle-31, Kolkata vs. M/S Agro Life Science Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1863/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Circle-31, V/S. M/S Agro Life Science 10B, Middleton Row, Corporation, Fmc Fortuna 4Th Floor, Kolkata-71 Building, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20 [Pan No.Aakfa 5781 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjeev Kadel, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata Dated 21.06.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-31, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows:- “1.”That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Allowing The Amount Of Rs.2,34,84,055/- & Rs.82,192/- On Account Of Excise Duty Refund & Interest Subsidy Respectively As Capital Receipt.” 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals)Has Not Taken Into Account The Verdict In The Following Cases: A) Sehanay Steel Pres Works Ltd. & Ors Vs. Cit (1997) 228 Itr 253 B) Kesoram Industries & Cotton Ltd. Vs. Cit (1991) 191 Itr 518

Section 143(3)

…4,84,055/- and Rs.82,192/- on account of Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy respectively as capital receipt.” 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)has not taken into account the verdict in the following cases: a) Sehanay Steel Pres Works Ltd. & Ors vs. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 b) Kesoram Industries & Cotton Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 518 1863/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 ACIT Cir-31,Kol. Vs. M/s Agro Life Science Corpn. Page 2 3. “Any other ground, appellant craves leave to submit on or before the hearing of appeal.” Shri Arindam Bhattarchejee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue and Shri Sanjev Ke…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Durgesh Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2266/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S. S. Godara)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Mehta, A.R
Section 14A

…gitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated that the subsidy is a capital receipt. Strong reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253. 12. After considering the facets and the submissions and drawing support from the various judicial judgments including those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld. CIT was convinced with the claim that the subsidy is a capital receipt and accordingly deleted the addition made by the A.O. 13. Before us, the ld. D.R. supported the findings of the…

The ACIT, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 484/COCH/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…3. 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Trivandrum erred in deleting the addition relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (228 ITR 253) and held that what appellant had received both from the Central Government and State Government is nothing but grants in aid received for the purpose of setting up of its business and to complete the projects and it was received for capital purposes. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the unspent balance of grants in aid not e…

The ACIT, Trivandrum vs. M/S.Kerala Livestock Dev Board Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 474/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…3. 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Trivandrum erred in deleting the addition relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (228 ITR 253) and held that what appellant had received both from the Central Government and State Government is nothing but grants in aid received for the purpose of setting up of its business and to complete the projects and it was received for capital purposes. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the unspent balance of grants in aid not e…

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…y is excise duty which is collected from the customers against sales of goods and on this count also, it is revenue in nature. The learned CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that nature of receipt, whether capital or revenue, will have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which subsidy is given. If the purpose is to help the assessee to set up its business or to complete a 22 Everest Industries Limited project monies must be treated as having been received from capit…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pasadensa Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3002/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, Vs. Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Circle-10(1), (Now Known As Dabur Foods Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2005-06 Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Now Known As Dabur Circle-10(1), Foods Ltd.), New Delhi. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT, Vs. Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Circle-10(1), (Now known as Dabur Foods Ltd.), 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2005-06 Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Vs. ACIT, (Now known as Dabur Circle-10(1), Foods Ltd.), New Delhi. 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Department By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.11.…

Pasadensa Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2731/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, Vs. Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Circle-10(1), (Now Known As Dabur Foods Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2005-06 Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Now Known As Dabur Circle-10(1), Foods Ltd.), New Delhi. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT, Vs. Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Circle-10(1), (Now known as Dabur Foods Ltd.), 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2005-06 Pasadensa Foods Ltd., Vs. ACIT, (Now known as Dabur Circle-10(1), Foods Ltd.), New Delhi. 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Department By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.11.…

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

…ble to tax. Ld. AR submits that the issue regarding taxability of sales tax incentive is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions reported in CIT vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd: 306 ITR 392 (SC), Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT: 228 ITR 253 (SC), V.S. S.V. Meenakshi Achi: 60 ITR 253 (SC), CIT v. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. : ITA No. 193/2015 (Del.), Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre (P.) Ltd.: 373 ITR 14 (Del), CIT vs. National Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd.: 254 ITR 599 (Del), Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT: 198 Taxman 122 (J&K) – Revenue’s appeal dismissed by th…

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Keventer Agro Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2768/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 40(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…ot for assisting the assessee in carrying out its business operation but incurred the promotion of industries in the State of West Bengal and consequently, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahaney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT 228 ITR 253 holding the sales tax remission as capital receipt. Ld. counsel also drew our attention to the fact that the sales tax remission under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993and 1999 was revenue or capital has already been examined and decided by ITA T, Kolkata Bench in the following appeals: “1. In the case of ITO, Ward-1(3) Ko/ Vs. M/s. Duro Plast…

M/S Keventer Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-4, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 40(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…ot for assisting the assessee in carrying out its business operation but incurred the promotion of industries in the State of West Bengal and consequently, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahaney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT 228 ITR 253 holding the sales tax remission as capital receipt. Ld. counsel also drew our attention to the fact that the sales tax remission under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993and 1999 was revenue or capital has already been examined and decided by ITA T, Kolkata Bench in the following appeals: “1. In the case of ITO, Ward-1(3) Ko/ Vs. M/s. Duro Plast…