← 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)

M/S. Pa Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Gummidipoondi vs. DCIT, Company Circle, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2733/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2733/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Pa Footwear Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner 314/C, S R Kandigai Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Pappankuppam Village, Circle 1, Ltu, Gummidipoondi – 601 201. Chennai. Pan: Aaacp 1923G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 27.08.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order. The Reason For Passing An Ex-Parte Order Is That The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

M/S. Geena Garments, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

ITA 1823/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1823/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Geena Garments Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of S.F. No. 410, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Pichampalayampudur B.O., Tirupur. Tiruppur 641 603. [Pan: Aagfg6962K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Suraj Nahar, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)

business or profession. He argued that the receipt on transfer of MEIS license is not an incentive as per the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Id. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessment year ... business income. In this regard, we shall examine as to whether the sale of scrips of MLFPS would fall under the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. We note that export from India, schemes are brought under Chapter 3 of Foreign Trade Policy between

Gandhinagar District Co.Op.Milk Producers Union Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Circle Gandhinaga, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 513/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.513/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gandhinagar District Co- The Asst.Cit बनाम/ Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd. Circle, Gandhinagar V/S. K. Road, Gidc Electronics Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar Gujarat – 382 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaajg 1061 B (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

purposes. We also note the argument of DR that the grant received by the assessee falls under the definition of "income" as per Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, which includes assistance in the form of subsidies or grants received from the government or any other authority and they ... assessee under the RKVY did not confer an unconditional economic benefit to the assessee and, as such, did not qualify as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, at the time of receipt. Judicial precedents consistently support the position that grants restricted by purpose and subject to refund

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tiruppur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing P Ltd, Tiruppur, Tamilnadu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

Gates Wears, Tiruppur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tiruppur

ITA 1014/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Victus Dyeings, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tirupur 641 601. The Assistant Commissioner Of [Pan: Aacfv4420D] Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Tirupur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Tirupur. Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) San Tex Inc., 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

San Tex Inc., Tirupur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Tirupur

ITA 94/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

Geena Garments, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

ACIT, Circle - 1, Tirupur vs. M/S K.M.Knit Wears, Tirupur

ITA 768/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Victus Dyeings, Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) San Tex Inc., 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

Victus Dyeings, Tirupur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tirupur

ITA 706/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

Km Knit Wear, Tirupur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 358/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirupur. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) 2

Section 143(1)Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

MLFPS is different prior to AY 2017-18 and now the claim is to be considered in terms of the provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act and argued that the assistance in the form of “subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty draw back or waiver ... treated as income with effect from 01.04.2016. MLFPS is also an incentive directly fall under the cash incentive under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. He referred to page 10 of the paper book regarding explanatory note in respect of section 145 of the Act. He submits the said

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 609/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 609/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43BSection 92

neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has dealt with the taxability of the subsidy by taking into consideration the amendment made to section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. However, this Hon’ble ITAT in Assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.53/Chny/2022 vide order dated ... held that post amendment to section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, subsidy will have to be treated as revenue receipt chargeable to tax and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the Appellant for AY 2018-19 on this particular ground. Since the subject AY 2016-17 is the first year

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1483/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

acquired in the earlier year and hence, it was held that it had no effect u/s 43(1) or u/s 43(6) and section 2(24)(xviii) also would not apply for the relevant year as it was effective from 1.4.2016 only. Thus, the said case was related to waiver

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

acquired in the earlier year and hence, it was held that it had no effect u/s 43(1) or u/s 43(6) and section 2(24)(xviii) also would not apply for the relevant year as it was effective from 1.4.2016 only. Thus, the said case was related to waiver