Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited on 7 May, 2018 cites

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

The accountant member, however, relied on a more recent decision of the Supreme Court reported at 306 ITR 392 (CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.) to hold that the purpose of the grant of the subsidy would be the overwhelming consideration in ascertaining whether the subsidy or the money was to be treated as a capital receipt or as a revenue receipt. Upon the difference being referred to a referee, the assessee's point of view was accepted and the purpose of the scheme was regarded to be one for setting up a new unit or expanding an existing unit and, as such, the subsidy had to be treated as a capital receipt notwithstanding the mode and manner of the subsidy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 315 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Kolhapur vs M/S Chaphalkar Brothers Pune on 7 December, 2017

It is easy to fall for such distinguishing feature in Ponni Sugars and confine the test recognised therein to cases only where the quantum of incentive is used to discharge a capital debt or a term loan or some capital expenditure or the like. However, the sweep of the "purpose test" has been expanded in a recent 4 judgment of the Supreme Court reported at 400 ITR 279 (CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers) where the subsidy in the form of exemption from payment of entertainment duty by newly set-up multiplex theatres for a certain number of years was regarded as a capital receipt by virtue of the very nature and purpose of the subsidy.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 79 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1