Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)

M/S. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax.Andhra ... on 19 September, 1997

4. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee received VAT subsidy of Government of Andhra Pradesh. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee received the subsidy after commencement of business operation year after year. The incentive was a supplementary trading receipt. After the receipt of subsidy, the assessee has discretion to use the same in the way in which it desires. According to the Ld. D.R., when the assessee was receiving subsidy in the course of business activity, the same has to be naturally treated as revenue receipt, therefore, it has to be added to the total income. Placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Limited v. CIT (1997) 94 Taxman 368, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the subsidy was not granted for production or bringing into existence any new asset. However, it was granted year after year 3 I.T.A. No.2050/Mds/17 after setting up of a new industry and commencement of production. According to the Ld. D.R., such a subsidy has to be treated as revenue receipt. Referring to the order of this Tribunal for assessment year 2011-12 in the assessee's own case, the Ld. D.R. pointed out that the Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court and the same is pending.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 343 - Full Document

C.I.T.,Jammu vs M/S Shree Balaji Alloys on 25 February, 2016

6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the VAT subsidy was granted to the assessee in pursuance of industrial promotion policy promoted by Government of Andhra Pradesh. The very object of Industrial Investment Promotion Policy is to invite the industrialists to prefer the State of Andhra Pradesh as their destination for establishment of industry. The Apex Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra) examined the issue and after considering its earlier judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 and CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217, found that refund of excise duty and interest subsidy received by the assessee in pursuance of industrial policy of Government of State would be capital receipt. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Commnr. Of Income Tax, Madras vs M/S. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd on 16 September, 2008

6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the VAT subsidy was granted to the assessee in pursuance of industrial promotion policy promoted by Government of Andhra Pradesh. The very object of Industrial Investment Promotion Policy is to invite the industrialists to prefer the State of Andhra Pradesh as their destination for establishment of industry. The Apex Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra) examined the issue and after considering its earlier judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 and CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217, found that refund of excise duty and interest subsidy received by the assessee in pursuance of industrial policy of Government of State would be capital receipt. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 315 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Cit vs M/S Meghalaya Steels Ltd on 9 March, 2016

6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the VAT subsidy was granted to the assessee in pursuance of industrial promotion policy promoted by Government of Andhra Pradesh. The very object of Industrial Investment Promotion Policy is to invite the industrialists to prefer the State of Andhra Pradesh as their destination for establishment of industry. The Apex Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra) examined the issue and after considering its earlier judgment in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 and CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217, found that refund of excise duty and interest subsidy received by the assessee in pursuance of industrial policy of Government of State would be capital receipt. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 133 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1