Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT

333 ITR 335Reported decision2011#345 most cited
249

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT · 333 ITR 335 · subsidy classification · capital vs revenue subsidy · industrial policy objectives · terms and conditions of scheme · section 2(24)(xviii) · section 80IB(4) · section 115JB · section 43(1) · initial assessment year · book profits

Also reported as

198 Taxmann 1229 Taxmann.com 255

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 115JBSection 14ASection 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 11bsection 80ib(4)section 2(24)(xviii)initial assessment yearminimum alternate taxsection 115jasection 80hhcsection 42section 32(1)(iia)section 43(1)section 80hhbook profits

Judgments citing Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fil Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

…eard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are of the considered view that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in the case of Shree Balaji Allows v. CIT and Another (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) where it has been held that the Excise Duty Refund is to be treated as ‘capital receipt’ and not liable to be taxed. Respectfully following the said judgment of Hon’ble J & K High Court, refund of excise duty of Rs.4,66,88,681/- is held to be as ‘capital receipt’. This ground of the assessee is allowed accordingly.” 6.1 The ld. CIT DR furt…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

…eard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are of the considered view that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in the case of Shree Balaji Allows v. CIT and Another (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) where it has been held that the Excise Duty Refund is to be treated as ‘capital receipt’ and not liable to be taxed. Respectfully following the said judgment of Hon’ble J & K High Court, refund of excise duty of Rs.4,66,88,681/- is held to be as ‘capital receipt’. This ground of the assessee is allowed accordingly.” 6.1 The ld. CIT DR furt…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

…eard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are of the considered view that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in the case of Shree Balaji Allows v. CIT and Another (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) where it has been held that the Excise Duty Refund is to be treated as ‘capital receipt’ and not liable to be taxed. Respectfully following the said judgment of Hon’ble J & K High Court, refund of excise duty of Rs.4,66,88,681/- is held to be as ‘capital receipt’. This ground of the assessee is allowed accordingly.” 6.1 The ld. CIT DR furt…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

…eard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are of the considered view that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in the case of Shree Balaji Allows v. CIT and Another (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) where it has been held that the Excise Duty Refund is to be treated as ‘capital receipt’ and not liable to be taxed. Respectfully following the said judgment of Hon’ble J & K High Court, refund of excise duty of Rs.4,66,88,681/- is held to be as ‘capital receipt’. This ground of the assessee is allowed accordingly.” 6.1 The ld. CIT DR furt…

M/S Fil Industries Ltd, Srinagar vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

…eard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are of the considered view that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in the case of Shree Balaji Allows v. CIT and Another (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) where it has been held that the Excise Duty Refund is to be treated as ‘capital receipt’ and not liable to be taxed. Respectfully following the said judgment of Hon’ble J & K High Court, refund of excise duty of Rs.4,66,88,681/- is held to be as ‘capital receipt’. This ground of the assessee is allowed accordingly.” 6.1 The ld. CIT DR furt…

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

…d. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (Guj.)(HC);  Hydro Carbons & Chemicals vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 1982- 86/Kol/09);  Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (Del.)(ITAT).  CIT v Gloster Jute mills Ltd ITA no. 766/Kol/2010  Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335/198 Taxman 122/9 taxmann.com 255 (J&K) 25. The ld. AR has further submitted the department has in subsequent years accepted the assessee’s claim of interest subsidy on TUF scheme as capital in nature as no addition has been made in subsequent years. 26. Ld DR relied upon the orders of authorities below. 27. We have heard the rival contentions, pe…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirupur vs. M/S Eastern Exports Global Clothing (P) Limited, Tirupur

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 548/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 32(1)

…rrelevant." It was thus held by Hon’ble Court that purpose test would be of paramount importance to determine the nature of subsidy. This decision has subsequently been followed by Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. vs CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K) which held that the incentives provided to the industrial unit with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated industrial development would be capital in nature. This decision has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as 138 DTR 36 (…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Limited, Tirupur

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2229/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 32(1)

…rrelevant." It was thus held by Hon’ble Court that purpose test would be of paramount importance to determine the nature of subsidy. This decision has subsequently been followed by Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. vs CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K) which held that the incentives provided to the industrial unit with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment, to eradicate the social problem of unemployment in the State by accelerated industrial development would be capital in nature. This decision has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as 138 DTR 36 (…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 497/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…er dated August 25, 2017 (Page 137 at pages 139-140 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 6 at 6.2). In the order dated August 25, 2017, the Hon’ble Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 496/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…er dated August 25, 2017 (Page 137 at pages 139-140 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 6 at 6.2). In the order dated August 25, 2017, the Hon’ble Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2143/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…er dated August 25, 2017 (Page 137 at pages 139-140 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 6 at 6.2). In the order dated August 25, 2017, the Hon’ble Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2142/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…er dated August 25, 2017 (Page 137 at pages 139-140 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 6 at 6.2). In the order dated August 25, 2017, the Hon’ble Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3517/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(2), Vs. M/S Hikal Ltd Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 717/718, Maker Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers V, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0383A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.Cit Dr Respondent By : Sri.Sanjay Parikh.Ar Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.CIT DRFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Parikh.AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 154

…v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. [2018] 12 ITR-OL 342 (Cal) (para 15) Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) (paras 13, 31) Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) (paras 11, 24, 25, 26, 28) Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K) (para 15) 9. Similarly the Ld.AR has also relied on the decision of the Honble Tribunal in the case of M/s Baltiboi Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA no 6228/M/2017 dated 21-5-2021 has observed at page 14 Para 7.3 read as under: 7.3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the decision relied upon by the l…

Shri Kamaldeep Singh, Phagwara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Phagwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250(4)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…v. ITO legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and therefore the additional ground is admitted in view of the following judgement: (i) NTPC vs. CIT(1998) 229 R 383 (SC) (ii) Dr. Raghuvendra Singh Vs. CIT (P & H) ITA- 806/10 (iii) Sh. Balaji Alloys 333 ITR 335 (J & K) 6. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel, has submitted that in the present case, the revenue has assessed capital gain in the hands of appellant assesse, the power of attorney holder of Sh. Sukhdev Singh who was the owner of the disputed land by the AO. The assesse counsel submitted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) brought any material on…

Mayur Uniquoters Limited, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT
Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH-A, JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaMkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kklnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR. M. L. MEENA, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 02/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 MayurUniquoters Ltd., cuke Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaitpura, Jaipur Sikar Road NFAC, New Delhi Jaitpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan India LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No: AAECM 1727F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 212/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2019-20 MayurUniquoters Ltd.,…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…manner is irrelevant, as has been held in both Ponni Sugar and Sahney Steel. 23. Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel, also sought to rely upon a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 255/198 Taxman 122/ 333 ITR 335. While considering the scheme of refund of excise duty and interest subsidy in that case, it was held that the ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 15 of 99 scheme was capital in nature, despite the fact that the incentives were not available unless and until comm…

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 3307/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…manner is irrelevant, as has been held in both Ponni Sugar and Sahney Steel. 23. Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel, also sought to rely upon a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 255/198 Taxman 122/ 333 ITR 335. While considering the scheme of refund of excise duty and interest subsidy in that case, it was held that the scheme was capital in nature, despite the fact that the incentives were not available unless and until commercial production has started, and that the incentives in the form of excise duty or interest subsidy were not given to the assess…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6405/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 28

…manner is irrelevant, as has been held in both Ponni Sugar and Sahney Steel. 23. Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel, also sought to rely upon a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 255/198 Taxman 122/ 333 ITR 335. While considering the scheme of refund of excise duty and interest subsidy in that case, it was held that the scheme was capital in nature, despite the fact that the incentives were not available unless and until commercial production has started, and that the incentives in the form of excise duty or interest subsidy were not given to the assess…

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…manner is irrelevant, as has been held in both Ponni Sugar and Sahney Steel. 23. Mr. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel, also sought to rely upon a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 255/198 Taxman 122/ 333 ITR 335. While considering the scheme of refund of excise duty and interest subsidy in that case, it was held that the scheme was capital in nature, despite the fact that the incentives were not available unless and until commercial production has started, and that the incentives in the form of excise duty or interest subsidy were not given to the assess…

Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…er dated August 25, 2017 (Page 137 at pages 139-140 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 6 at 6.2). In the order dated August 25, 2017, the Hon’ble Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by…