2025 (8) TMI 1175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he "Act"), dated 21.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: "Being aggrieved by the order passed u/s. 250 dated 18 March 2024 ('impugned order) by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 57, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'), Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (as successor to Mahindra Vehicle Manufacturers Limited) (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant') hereby submits the following grounds of appeal for your kind and sympathetic consideration. These grounds are being raised without prejudice to one another: 1. Order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, without jurisdiction and principles of natural justice a) The Order passed by the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l subsidy received by the assessee from the State Government of Maharashtra under the package scheme of incentives, 2007, to be treated as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. According to the assessee, industrial promotional subsidy is ought to be treated as capital receipt even in the light of amended section 2(24)(viii) for normal provisions as well as book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 4. Assessee did not raise this issue in the assessment proceedings though it had credited receipt of this amount in its profit and loss account and it was only at the first appellate stage where this issue was raised by way of an additional ground. Ld. CIT(A) dealt with this additional ground in para 9 of its order. Assessee before the ld. CIT(A) subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the facts relating to the claim u/s. 2(24)(viii), placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC) and in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [2008] 228 ITR 253 (SC) to dislodge the claim of the assessee and held to treat it as the revenue receipt chargeable to tax. Ld. CIT(A) in its deliberation took note of certain factual details and documents which assessee did not furnish to justify the claim as to details about where the unit was located and details of manufacturing activity carried in the unit. Further, assessee could not furnish details of capital investment made and also details of employment generated. He further observed that in a....