Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal decision: Deduction disallowance, revenue receipts treatment, book profits set-off, depreciation, and remitted issues.

        Dhariwal Industries Ltd. And Others Versus Addl. CIT, Circle-1 (2), Pune And Others

        Dhariwal Industries Ltd. And Others Versus Addl. CIT, Circle-1 (2), Pune And Others - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Deduction under Section 80I/80IA.
        2. Treatment of sales tax incentive as revenue or capital receipt.
        3. Computation of book profits under Section 115JB.
        4. Depreciation on assets of Hyderabad unit.
        5. Additional ground on deduction under Section 80IA.
        6. Capital subsidy from MEDA.

        Issue-Wise Analysis:

        1. Deduction under Section 80I/80IA:
        The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80I and 80IA for its Baroda and Hyderabad units. The AO disallowed the claims based on a previous Tribunal decision, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that a Special Bench had determined that Gutkha and Pan Masala manufactured by the assessee were 'tobacco preparations' under the Eleventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act, thus not qualifying for deductions under Sections 80I/80IA. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

        2. Treatment of Sales Tax Incentive:
        The assessee received sales tax incentives for setting up windmills, which it claimed as capital receipts. The AO treated these as revenue receipts, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal analyzed the scheme and noted that the incentives were linked to the operational efficiency of the windmills, thus characterizing them as revenue receipts. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars, emphasizing that the purpose of the subsidy determines its nature. Since the incentives were for operational efficiency, the Tribunal concluded they were revenue receipts and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

        3. Computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB:
        The AO did not allow the set-off of losses from merging companies for computing book profits under Section 115JB, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed the set-off for normal computation but not for book profits. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., which allows claims not made in the return to be considered by appellate authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to set off the brought-forward losses for computing book profits under Section 115JB, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

        4. Depreciation on Assets of Hyderabad Unit:
        The AO disallowed depreciation on the Hyderabad unit's assets, which were not used during the year, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to multiple High Court decisions, including Oswal Agro Mills and Sonal Gum Industries, which held that depreciation is allowable on assets forming part of a block of assets even if not used in the relevant year. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the Hyderabad unit's assets, allowing the appeal on this ground.

        5. Additional Ground on Deduction under Section 80IA:
        The assessee raised an additional ground for deduction under Section 80IA if the sales tax incentive was considered a revenue receipt. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as academic since the assessee would not be entitled to any deduction under Section 80IA even if the incentive was treated as revenue.

        6. Capital Subsidy from MEDA:
        The assessee received a capital subsidy from MEDA, which it did not offer to tax, arguing it had already been taxed in an earlier year. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground, noting that the matter for the earlier year was still pending. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication after the appeal for the earlier year was decided.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal's decisions were a mix of upholding and reversing the lower authorities' decisions based on detailed legal analysis and precedents. The appeals were partly allowed, with specific issues remitted for further consideration.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found