Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.50 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs Mis Indo Rama Textiles Ltd. on 23 January, 2024 cites

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs Acit , Mumbai on 8 March, 2022

26. The fact that the 1993 Scheme is different from the scheme which the Andhra Pradesh Government framed [which was considered in Sahney Steel] is evident upon perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A). The finding of fact returned by the CIT(A) is that the 1993 Scheme is akin to the 1979 Scheme considered in DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. 26.1 Even though the appellant/revenue did not inform us as to whether the decision of the special bench of the Tribunal rendered in DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd was carried further in appeal, we are of the opinion that the frame of the 1993 Scheme clearly indicates that it was mainly envisaged to industrialise underdeveloped and developing areas and not to improve the production capability or profitability of industrial units, which may have been incidental benefits of the said scheme.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 116 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

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

"18. Mr. Ganesh's further argument was that the three types of refunds contemplated in the scheme, the refund of sales tax on purchase of machinery must be treated as capital. The payment for the purchase of machineries must be of capital nature and the entire payment of sales tax must have been treated as capital expenditure of the Company. If any refund of sales tax paid on purchase of capital goods is made the refund will partake of the character which it had originally borne. Such refunds cannot in any circumstances be treated as trade receipts or supplementary trade Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI ITA 392/2014 & connected appeals Page 15 of 23 Signing Date:29.01.2024 15:05:38 receipts. This argument overlooks the basic principle laid down in the cases discussed above. It is not the source from which the amount is paid to the assesses which is determinative of the question whether the subsidy payments are of revenue or capital nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 343 - Full Document

Dcit 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs Diesel Fashion India Reliance Pvt. ... on 4 March, 2022

"(c) In the background of the facts above, and directions of the ITAT, the appellant's case for AY 97-97 that the case of the appellant for claim of sales tax subsidy as exempt being a capital receipt be examined in the case of DCIT vs Reliance Inds. ltd 88 ITD 273 (Mumbai Special bench), the relevant grounds of appeal are required to be considered. My analysis and findings are as under
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next