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

DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atlanta Infra Assets Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1478/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.P. MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta &
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-9(1)(2), Vs. M/s. Atlanta Infra Assets Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) (formerly known as Balaji Tollways Ltd.) 101, Shri Amba Shanti Chambers, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 (Respondent) PAN : AACCB7416Q Appellant by : Shri R.P. Meena Respondent by : Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Date of Hearing : 03/07/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15/09/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the Revenue is direc…

DCIT, Madurai vs. M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalayam

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2145/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1875 To 1877/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., V. The Addl. Commissioner Of 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Rajapalayam Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2143 To 2145/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 The Addl. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Tax, 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Rajapalayam Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl
Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…11 directed the Ld.AO to delete the above said addition. At the outset the Ld.DR submitted before us that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case CIT vs. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd reported in 228 ITR 253 (SC) and 152 ITR 39 (AP High court). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld.AO may be reinstated. The Ld.AR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 18 I.T.A. Nos. 1875 to 1877/Mds/2016 & I.T.A Nos.2143 to 2145/Mds/2016 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The gist of th…

DCIT, Madurai vs. M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalayam

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2144/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1875 To 1877/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., V. The Addl. Commissioner Of 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Rajapalayam Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2143 To 2145/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 The Addl. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Tax, 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Rajapalayam Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl
Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…11 directed the Ld.AO to delete the above said addition. At the outset the Ld.DR submitted before us that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case CIT vs. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd reported in 228 ITR 253 (SC) and 152 ITR 39 (AP High court). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld.AO may be reinstated. The Ld.AR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 18 I.T.A. Nos. 1875 to 1877/Mds/2016 & I.T.A Nos.2143 to 2145/Mds/2016 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The gist of th…

DCIT, Madurai vs. M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalayam

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2143/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1875 To 1877/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., V. The Addl. Commissioner Of 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Rajapalayam Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2143 To 2145/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 The Addl. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Tax, 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Rajapalayam Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl
Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…11 directed the Ld.AO to delete the above said addition. At the outset the Ld.DR submitted before us that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case CIT vs. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd reported in 228 ITR 253 (SC) and 152 ITR 39 (AP High court). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld.AO may be reinstated. The Ld.AR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 18 I.T.A. Nos. 1875 to 1877/Mds/2016 & I.T.A Nos.2143 to 2145/Mds/2016 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The gist of th…

Ramco Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Virudhunagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 1875/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1875 To 1877/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., V. The Addl. Commissioner Of 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Rajapalayam Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2143 To 2145/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 The Addl. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Tax, 47, P.S.K. Nagar, Virudhunagar Range, Virudhunagar. Rajapalayam Pan: Aaacr5284J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Suresh Kumar, Addl
Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…11 directed the Ld.AO to delete the above said addition. At the outset the Ld.DR submitted before us that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case CIT vs. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd reported in 228 ITR 253 (SC) and 152 ITR 39 (AP High court). He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld.AO may be reinstated. The Ld.AR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 18 I.T.A. Nos. 1875 to 1877/Mds/2016 & I.T.A Nos.2143 to 2145/Mds/2016 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. The gist of th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Vardhman Industries Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/708/2004HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…exceeding the computed amount, the assessee was liable to pay such excess sales tax so collected. In this connection, we feel it expedient to consider the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawhney Steels & Press Works Ltd. reported in 228 ITR 253. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case decided that if the moneys are given to the assessees for assisting them in carrying out their business operations and the money was given only after and conditional upon commencement of the production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. But in so far as the c…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/317/2003HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…exceeding the computed amount, the assessee was liable to pay such excess sales tax so collected. In this connection, we feel it expedient to consider the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawhney Steels & Press Works Ltd. reported in 228 ITR 253. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case decided that if the moneys are given to the assessees for assisting them in carrying out their business operations and the money was given only after and conditional upon commencement of the production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. But in so far as the c…

The Commissioner of the Income vs. M/S Vardhman Industries Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/725/2004HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…exceeding the computed amount, the assessee was liable to pay such excess sales tax so collected. In this connection, we feel it expedient to consider the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawhney Steels & Press Works Ltd. reported in 228 ITR 253. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case decided that if the moneys are given to the assessees for assisting them in carrying out their business operations and the money was given only after and conditional upon commencement of the production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. But in so far as the c…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/434/2005HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…exceeding the computed amount, the assessee was liable to pay such excess sales tax so collected. In this connection, we feel it expedient to consider the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawhney Steels & Press Works Ltd. reported in 228 ITR 253. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case decided that if the moneys are given to the assessees for assisting them in carrying out their business operations and the money was given only after and conditional upon commencement of the production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. But in so far as the c…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/316/2003HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…exceeding the computed amount, the assessee was liable to pay such excess sales tax so collected. In this connection, we feel it expedient to consider the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawhney Steels & Press Works Ltd. reported in 228 ITR 253. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case decided that if the moneys are given to the assessees for assisting them in carrying out their business operations and the money was given only after and conditional upon commencement of the production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. But in so far as the c…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

ITA/315/2003HC Delhi13 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 221Section 4

…exceeding the computed amount, the assessee was liable to pay such excess sales tax so collected. In this connection, we feel it expedient to consider the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawhney Steels & Press Works Ltd. reported in 228 ITR 253. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in this case decided that if the moneys are given to the assessees for assisting them in carrying out their business operations and the money was given only after and conditional upon commencement of the production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. But in so far as the c…

Anand Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen-III, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3895/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3895/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Anand Jain, The Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-13, Sterling Apartments, Income Tax , Central – Iii, V. 38, Peddar Road, Room No. 109, Mumbai – 400 026. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpj1890J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…eipt. Given the fact that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court was operative at the material time, the Assessing Officer could not be said to be wrong. The fact that the Supreme Court had subsequently held in Sahney Steel and Press Works' case [1997] 228 ITR 253, that power subsidy was revenue in nature would not justify the Commissioner's treating the decision of the Assessing Officer as erroneous. The power of the Commissioner under section 263 had to be exercised on the basis of the material that was available to him when he exercised the power. At that time, there was no dispute that the issue whethe…

DCIT, CC-Xvi, Kolkata vs. South Asian Petrochem Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)

…at on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in treating the incentive received as capital receipt by not appreciating that the decision of the Apex court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd –v-CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 on the same issue. 4. That the Department craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 4. The solitary issue raised by the Revenue in all the grounds of this appeal is whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the subsidy received is a capital r…

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2163/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, and Shri Gaurav Jain &
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle-2, Surajpur Kasna Road, A-2D, Sector-24, Greater Noida, Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. PAN: AAACL1745Q Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, and Shri Gaurav Jain & Ms Bhavita Kumar, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 18.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee is…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…88 treated the said notional sales tax as revenue receipt liable to tax on the ground that such sales tax subsidy is an operational subsidy. The AO also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahani Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253. Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 4.3 On behalf of the assessee it was contended that the sales tax exemption given under the schemes by the Government of Maharashtra and Government of Gujarat are towards the objective of dispersal of industry, development of backward area and generating employment o…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…\IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. ACIT – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAACL6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAACL6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) ACIT – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 09…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dicitex Furnishing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby

ITA 4374/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Rajguru M. V
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…n law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of interest subsidy amounting to Rs.1,04,54,061/- treating the same as Capital receipt by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Vs. CIT (228 ITR 253 (SC)), without countering the findings of the A.O. in para 5.5 of the Assessment order that assessee had received subsidy in the form of 5% reduction in the rate of interest and interest being a revenue expenditure allowable under the IT Act, any subsidy relating to interest is also to be treated as revenue item. 2. The appellant craves leave to…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dicitex Furnishings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby

ITA 2148/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Rajguru M. V
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…n law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of interest subsidy amounting to Rs.1,04,54,061/- treating the same as Capital receipt by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Vs. CIT (228 ITR 253 (SC)), without countering the findings of the A.O. in para 5.5 of the Assessment order that assessee had received subsidy in the form of 5% reduction in the rate of interest and interest being a revenue expenditure allowable under the IT Act, any subsidy relating to interest is also to be treated as revenue item. 2. The appellant craves leave to…

Sicpa India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Sicpa India Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -8, Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose while appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 885/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 885/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sicpa India Private Limited -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-8, (Formerly Known As Kolkata Sicpa India Ltd. ), Kolkata [Pan : Aadcs 6121 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 933/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, Sicpa India Private Limited Kolkata (Formerly Known As Sicpa India Ltd. ), Kolkata [Pan : Aadcs 6121 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Assessee : Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Ar For The Department : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Jaiswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 14ASection 43B

…receipt not chargeable to tax and not revenue receipt which is chargeable to tax. The Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Etc. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 105 : (2008) 13 DTR (SC) 1 : (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), held as follows: “15. After going through the two judgments, we find the ratio in Sahney Steel case (supra) and approval thereof in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra), to have been spelt out, in the following para of…

ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bst Textile Mils P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Bst Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. 309, 3Rd Ito 8 (1) (2) बनाम/ Mumbai Pin 400020 Floor Wodrow Bldg, Vera Desai Mumbai Pin 400053 Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaccb7130P

Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…the above ratio in the said judgment reported in [2013] .356 ITR 235 supra. Further, the said case law has been given on the basis of interpretation on. the said issue by the Hon'ble Supreme 'Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd v CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC); CIT v Rajararn Maize Products [2011] 251 ITR 427 (SC) and CIT v Eastern Electro Chemical Industries [1999]. Thus that the judgment cited in 356 ITR 235 relied, upon by the Assessee as supra has considered all earlier judgments and given the finality on the issue involved. It was, therefore, submitted that the amount of "interest.- reimburse…