← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)(xviii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(xviii)99 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(xviii) is CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392), cited in 577 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)(xviii)

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court
577
citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT
228 ITR 253 · 1997 · Supreme Court
429
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.
210 ITR 830 · 1994 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the conditions under which a capital subsidy received by an assessee should be reduced from the 'actual cost' of an asset for computing depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, depending on whether the subsidy directly meets the cost of the asset.

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 286 · 2022 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers
400 ITR 279 · 2018 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

Orissa State Warehousing Corpn v. CIT
237 ITR 589 · 1999 · Supreme Court
114
citing judgments

A fiscal statute must be interpreted strictly based on its plain language, without substituting judicial impressions for legislative intent. Exemptions and exclusions within such statutes must also be construed strictly and cannot be extended through interpretation.

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
5 SCC 536 · 1997 · Reported
93
citing judgments

Tax can only be levied or collected by authority of law, as mandated by Article 265 of the Constitution; consequently, any tax collected contrary to law must be refunded.

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.
66 ITR 710 · 1967 · Supreme Court
93
citing judgments

Income tax law intends to avoid double taxation, and where an item is brought to tax in one form, appropriate relief or adjustment should be provided to prevent its taxation again in another form. This principle is applicable when considering government grants or subsidies included in income and their impact on the actual cost of assets for depreciation.

Judgments citing Section 2(24)(xviii)

Sahyadri Farmers Producer Company Limited, Nashik vs. PCIT, -1, Nashik

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

ITA 1378/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By Ld. Pcit, Nashik-1 [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit-1, Nashik Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Ita, 1961 On The Analogy That The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Ita, 1961 Dated 19/09/2022 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. Grounds Relating To Government Grants:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 263Section 43(1)

revenue. 3. Learned PCIT erred in law and on facts in treating the government grants as taxable income of appellant as per section 2(24)(xviii) of ITA, 1961 without appreciating that, said grants are reduced from cost of respective assets (for which grants are received) as per explanation ... section 43(1). As such, the such grants are excluded from purview of section 2(24)(xviii). 4. Learned PCIT erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that, various courts have held that, government grants are not revenue in nature and ought to be deducted from cost

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

ITA 87/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Airport V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Limited, 8, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Centre, Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 Cuffe Parade, Colaba S.O. 020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

Airport of Rs. 42,14,00,000/- + Grant towards Other Airports (Repairs & Maintenance) of Rs. 2,52,84,704/-) by invoking provisions of Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act without appreciating the explanations and documents placed on record by the appellant. c) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate