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 366,470 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Bougainvillea Multiplex Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd

ITA-586/2013HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 143(3)Section 260

…s credited by the co. in its books of accounts as income. However, while filing the return of income, the same has been claimed to be exempt in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. us. CIT 228 ITR 253 wherein the Hon'ble SC has held that the character of receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the recipient would depend upon the purpose for which the subsidy has been granted. In case the subsidy has been granted for the purpose of setting up a business, the same would constitute a project subsidy and be capital receipt in the hands of the r…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd

In the result, the revenue succeeds

ITA/489/2007HC Karnataka09 Oct 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 260Section 260A

…. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors.(2008) 306 ITR 392 and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. etc. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 228 ITR 253(SC). 12 8. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the appeal deserves to be rejected outright, since no substantial question of law is involved. It was further submitted that having regard to the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, the questions of law as raised, does not…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bal Pharma Limited

The appeal is allowed

ITA/1287/2006HC Karnataka16 Jul 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 260

…sidy) received by the assessee by setting up the assets after it was purchased and the subsidy was utilized to enhance the assessee’s fund position or cash flow cannot be treated as the revenue receipt as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253?” 3. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax reported in (1997) 228 ITR 0253 has held that “if the subsidies were received year after year by refund of Sales Tax is a benefit received in the course of carrying on the assessee’s business. It was a benefit incidental to its business. Th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd

Appeals are dismissed with costs

ITA/369/2007HC Delhi25 Sept 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

…relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax Calcutta, 116 ITR 1 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad 228 ITR 253. These are not applicable in the present case inasmuch as in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited (supra), profits were earned by the company in Pakistan. There was devaluation of rupee by Pakistan and when subsequently those profits were remitted to India, there was loss due to exchange fluctuation. The question was as to whether such…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd

Appeals are dismissed with costs

ITA - 368 / 2007HC Delhi25 Sept 2009

…ce Ltd., 94 ITR 582. - ii) The Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T., Trivandrum, 243 ITR 158. Commissioner of Income-tax Calcutta, 116 ITR 1 and Sahney Ste and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. v. Commissioner of Incometax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad 228 ITR 253. These are not applicable in the present case inasmuch as in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited (supra), profits were earned by the company in Pakistan. There was devaluation of rupee by Pakistan and when subsequently those profits were remitted to India, there was loss due to exchange fluctuation. The question was as to whether such a loss…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd

Appeals are dismissed with costs

ITA-369/2007HC Delhi25 Sept 2009

…relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax Calcutta, 116 ITR 1 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad 228 ITR 253. These are not applicable in the present case inasmuch as in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited (supra), profits were earned by the company in Pakistan. There was devaluation of rupee by Pakistan and when subsequently those profits were remitted to India, there was loss due to exchange fluctuation. The question was as to whether such…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd

Appeals are dismissed with costs

ITA - 369 / 2007HC Delhi25 Sept 2009

…relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax Calcutta, 116 ITR 1 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., Hyderabad etc. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad 228 ITR 253. These are not applicable in the present case inasmuch as in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited (supra), profits were earned by the company in Pakistan. There was devaluation of rupee by Pakistan and when subsequently those profits were remitted to India, there was loss due to exchange fluctuation. The question was as to whether such…

Commnr. of Income Tax, Madras vs. M/S. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Department are partly allowed

C.A. No.-005694-005694 - 2008Supreme Court16 Sept 2008
Section 80

…material nor 4 relevant for deciding the character of the incentive subsidy. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT reported in (1997) 228 ITR 253. 8. Shri Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the benefits were conferred on the assessee under the 1980 and 1987 Schemes, namely, additional price by reason of enhancement of free sale sugar quota, which resulted in the benefit of additional price, which price had to be utilized only…

Commissioner of of Income Tax, Kolkata - I vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd

ITA/233/2007HC Calcutta22 Jun 2007

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 4A

…ssessment year 2004-05 and Rs.23,51,09,072 for the assessment year 2005-06 received by the assessee a capital receipts, and not as revenue receipts, contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel Works Ltd. V CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253?” 4. Thus, in the afore-noted income tax appeals the common question is involved as to whether amount exemption from trade tax on turnover of 3 sales of the UP Trade Tax Act, 1948, availed by the assessee, is a capital receipt as subsidy or a revenue receipt? Facts of the Case: 5. As stated by the learned counsel for both the parties…