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

M/S Pvr Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2143/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Pvr Ltd. Addl. Cit Range-14 New Delhi 61, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar Vs New Delhi-110057 Pan No.Aaacp4526D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 43(1)Section 43B

…es in application. assessee's eligibility for subsidy or income being illegal in nature. (ii) Coming to the nature of subsidy, 14. CIT(Appeals) held it to be revenue in nature: (a) relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 (SC): (b) It has been further held that the grant received by assessee was not related to any asset or capital out lay as the payment of subsidy was made after completion of multiplex theatre based on its running for a period of three years. (c) The amount of subsidy was only quantified to the limit of cost of asset and the amount of entertainm…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Raipur vs. Shri Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 201/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 201/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited, 00, Vill. Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Raipur-493221. Pan : Aaccb2944D ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…as been granted to setup its business or to complete a project and therefore the subsidy received is for capital purposes and therefore the subsidy so received is capital in nature not liable to tax. In case of Sahney Steel and Press works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT 228 ITR 253, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the character of the subsidy in the hands of the recipient whether revenue or capital — will have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. The source of the fund is quite immaterial. However, if the purpose is to help the assessee to setup its business or complete a project…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in view of the above mentioned terms

ITA 755/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Astha Chandralg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 51, Udyog Vihar, Circle-2, Noida Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacl1745Q Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv, Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Shri Ramit Katyal, Ar Mr. Aditya Vohra, Adv Revenue By: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144

…e assessee and accordingly constitutes revenue LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd receipt chargeable to tax. Reliance in this regard placed by the ld DR on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd Vs. CIT reports in 228 ITR 253 (SC). In other words, the ld DR argued that the subsidy given to the assessee was only for running the industry after commencement of production by the assessee and that the date of commencement of commercial production would be reckoning factor for deciding the nature of subsidy. We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept this line of argum…

DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon vs. Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Fun Multiplex Pvt. Ltd.), Gurgaon

In the result Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross-objection stand dismissed

ITA 4021/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…o the conclusion that it is a capital receipt. The Jurisdictional High Court has referred and relied upon the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in Pooni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) and Sahney Steel andPress Works Ltd. v/s CIT, [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC). …… In view of the aforesaid decision of the Jurisdictional High Court which applies mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case also, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the revenue and, therefore, the findings given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby affirmed. Thus, ground no. 1 is treated as dismissed. Furt…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 717/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

…said decision followed the principle laid down by the in the aforesaid decision followed the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. Vs. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT(228 ITR 253) wherein it was held that the object for which the CIT(228 ITR 253) wherein it was held that the object for which the CIT(228 ITR 253) wherein it was held that the object for which the subsidy was given was decisive. It also recognized the distinction subsidy was given was decisive. It also recognized the distinction subsidy was given was decisiv…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1421/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

…said decision followed the principle laid down by the in the aforesaid decision followed the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. Vs. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT(228 ITR 253) wherein it was held that the object for which the CIT(228 ITR 253) wherein it was held that the object for which the CIT(228 ITR 253) wherein it was held that the object for which the subsidy was given was decisive. It also recognized the distinction subsidy was given was decisive. It also recognized the distinction subsidy was given was decisiv…

Chaitanya Steelshape Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 792/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

Section 250

…subsidy was transferred by the assessee to ‘Reserve and Surplus’ account, which indicated that it was not utilised for incurring or setting up a new unit or for expansion of the existing one. Relying on the judgment in Sahney Steel Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC), he held the amount chargeable to tax. The ld. CIT(A) did not provide any succour to the assessee, against which the extant appeal has been instituted. 4. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee received subsidy of Rs.3,22,200/- in the year under consideration, which was tr…

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. The ACIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

…ction. The benefit of incentive is not given on the investment made by the assesse but only after commencement of the production. Accordingly the AO supported its view by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC) as well as CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC). The assesse filed objectionS against the draft assessment order before the DRP. The DRP has confirmed the draft assessment order and rejected objections filed by the assesse while passing direction u/s 144C(13) of the Act. The DRP has considered and followed the direction of…

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…sidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. The form of subsidy is immaterial.‖ In fact, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while rendering this decision had duly considered its earlier decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., reported in 228 ITR 253 and had absolutely no quarrel with that judgement. Rather, it concurred with the decision rendered in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., case. In this regard, it would be relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., as under:- ―14. The second case is Lincolnsh…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…sidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. The form of subsidy is immaterial.‖ In fact, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while rendering this decision had duly considered its earlier decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., reported in 228 ITR 253 and had absolutely no quarrel with that judgement. Rather, it concurred with the decision rendered in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., case. In this regard, it would be relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., as under:- ―14. The second case is Lincolnsh…

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…issue in detail in para 54 and 55 of its decision, which reads as under:- "54. Per contra, the learned D.R. Supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). Referring to the judgment in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited v. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), he submitted that the impugned sales tax exemption increased the profits of the assessee by eliminating the expenses which the assessee would have had to incur later and therefore the impugned receipts were in the revenue field. He also referred to Explanation (10) to Section 43 (1) of the Income Tax Act inserted in with effect from 01/04/9…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…issue in detail in para 54 and 55 of its decision, which reads as under:- "54. Per contra, the learned D.R. Supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). Referring to the judgment in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited v. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), he submitted that the impugned sales tax exemption increased the profits of the assessee by eliminating the expenses which the assessee would have had to incur later and therefore the impugned receipts were in the revenue field. He also referred to Explanation (10) to Section 43 (1) of the Income Tax Act inserted in with effect from 01/04/9…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 720/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…. 652, 1424, 719 & 720/Mum/2020 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997 & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and submitted that and submitted that subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the to be determined having regard to the…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 719/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…. 652, 1424, 719 & 720/Mum/2020 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997 & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and submitted that and submitted that subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the to be determined having regard to the…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 652/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…. 652, 1424, 719 & 720/Mum/2020 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997 & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and submitted that and submitted that subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the to be determined having regard to the…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 1424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…. 652, 1424, 719 & 720/Mum/2020 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997 & Press Works Ltd.’s (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) and submitted that and submitted that subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have subsidy or the incentives received in the hand of the recipient have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the to be determined having regard to the…

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…and if true nature of the receipt or payment is different then the same has to be evaluated on the basis of substance of the transaction and in accordance with the law applicable to such transaction. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sahney Steel (228 ITR 253) has held that the decision would depend upon the salient features of the Scheme. If it is given as a general assistance to the assessee to carry on his business or trade, it would be a trading receipt, but if the object of the subsidy, irrespective of its source, is to enable the assessee to acquire new plant and machinery for future expansion o…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…and if true nature of the receipt or payment is different then the same has to be evaluated on the basis of substance of the transaction and in accordance with the law applicable to such transaction. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sahney Steel (228 ITR 253) has held that the decision would depend upon the salient features of the Scheme. If it is given as a general assistance to the assessee to carry on his business or trade, it would be a trading receipt, but if the object of the subsidy, irrespective of its source, is to enable the assessee to acquire new plant and machinery for future expansion o…

DCIT, Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 84/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

…l asset and therefore since the purpose has been to compensate the competitive disadvantage of the business concern such subsidy falls in the realm of revenue. The learned departmental representative relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 228 ITR 253 and submitted that the nature of subsidy clearly appears to be of revenue in nature. The learned departmental representative also pressed into service the explanation 10 of section 43 (1) of the act. 05. The learned authorised representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate…

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 356/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

…l asset and therefore since the purpose has been to compensate the competitive disadvantage of the business concern such subsidy falls in the realm of revenue. The learned departmental representative relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 228 ITR 253 and submitted that the nature of subsidy clearly appears to be of revenue in nature. The learned departmental representative also pressed into service the explanation 10 of section 43 (1) of the act. 05. The learned authorised representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate…