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

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

…was held that the incentive received under the WB Incentive Scheme is capital in nature. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in incorrectly applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT (1997)228 ITR 253 (SC), though the said decision has been specifically held to be inapplicable to the West Bengal IPA subsidy by the Calcutta High Court in Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438, cited supra. 3. The learned CIT(A) committed factual errors in failing to note that the West Bengal Govt. abolished all sales tax related incentives with effect from 1st Jan 2000…

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 957/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

…was held that the incentive received under the WB Incentive Scheme is capital in nature. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in incorrectly applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT (1997)228 ITR 253 (SC), though the said decision has been specifically held to be inapplicable to the West Bengal IPA subsidy by the Calcutta High Court in Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438, cited supra. 3. The learned CIT(A) committed factual errors in failing to note that the West Bengal Govt. abolished all sales tax related incentives with effect from 1st Jan 2000…

DCIT, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Rajapalayam

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1363/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

…was held that the incentive received under the WB Incentive Scheme is capital in nature. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in incorrectly applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT (1997)228 ITR 253 (SC), though the said decision has been specifically held to be inapplicable to the West Bengal IPA subsidy by the Calcutta High Court in Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438, cited supra. 3. The learned CIT(A) committed factual errors in failing to note that the West Bengal Govt. abolished all sales tax related incentives with effect from 1st Jan 2000…

DCIT, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1274/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

…was held that the incentive received under the WB Incentive Scheme is capital in nature. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in incorrectly applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. CIT (1997)228 ITR 253 (SC), though the said decision has been specifically held to be inapplicable to the West Bengal IPA subsidy by the Calcutta High Court in Rasoi Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 438, cited supra. 3. The learned CIT(A) committed factual errors in failing to note that the West Bengal Govt. abolished all sales tax related incentives with effect from 1st Jan 2000…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Td, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2218/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…g such subsidy is setting up of new unit / expansion of existing business. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahaney Steel and Press works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT (228 ITR 253) to make a disallowance towards subsidy received as reimbursement of Society Commission and Freight and VAT/CST charges. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 17. The ld. AR submitted that as per the terms of the scheme the subsidy is received as an incentive towards setting up of new sugar factories in private sector to speed up the industrial…

Bajaj Hindustan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2059/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…g such subsidy is setting up of new unit / expansion of existing business. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahaney Steel and Press works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT (228 ITR 253) to make a disallowance towards subsidy received as reimbursement of Society Commission and Freight and VAT/CST charges. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 17. The ld. AR submitted that as per the terms of the scheme the subsidy is received as an incentive towards setting up of new sugar factories in private sector to speed up the industrial…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri K. C Selvamani (DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 880/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses…

Dy.CIT CC -5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2571/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses…

DCIT- CC5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2569/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…idy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the ass…

CIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2565/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses…

DCIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2563/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बनाम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…idy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the ass…

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 320/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are

ITA 1176/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses wh…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1175/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses wh…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…subsidy was revenue in nature. This Court after referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392/174 Taxman 87 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 94 Taxman 368/228 ITR 253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given to the assesses…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…d with the grants in question are part of inventory/work-in-progress, hence revenue in nature. Since grant is received to meet revenue expenses, the receipt is revenue in nature as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., [1997], 228 ITR 253. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,91,580/- u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 hus to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court…

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…d with the grants in question are part of inventory/work-in-progress, hence revenue in nature. Since grant is received to meet revenue expenses, the receipt is revenue in nature as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., [1997], 228 ITR 253. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,91,580/- u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 hus to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court…

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…d with the grants in question are part of inventory/work-in-progress, hence revenue in nature. Since grant is received to meet revenue expenses, the receipt is revenue in nature as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., [1997], 228 ITR 253. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,91,580/- u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 hus to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court…

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…d with the grants in question are part of inventory/work-in-progress, hence revenue in nature. Since grant is received to meet revenue expenses, the receipt is revenue in nature as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., [1997], 228 ITR 253. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,91,580/- u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court…