1. CIT v. IBM World Trade Corporation

130 ITR 739High Court1981#13389 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10AA Section 234B Section 32AC Section 35(2AB)

Issues it is cited on

section 32 person company india business interest

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. IBM World Trade Corporation

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 962/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 1Section 10ASection 2Section 234BSection 250Section 32A

…Assessee was carrying on. These details have not been brought on record by the Assessee before the lower authorities nor before us. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn. [1981] 130 ITR 739 (Born.) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held the expression "office equipment" used in Sec. 33 should be construed in context of appliances which are generally used in office as an aid for proper function of office and that EA machines, data processing machines installation and operation of which is on scientific basis, and which has their…

M/S. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

…accommodation. We note that the development activity carried on by the assessee cannot be considered to be a manufacturing activity. Accordingly, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. IBM World Trade Corpn., reported in (1981) 130 ITR 739, we do not IT(TP)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Page 32 of 32 find any infirmity in the disallowance of additional depreciation to assessee. Accordingly Ground no.16 raised by assessee stands dismissed. In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2022 (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER B…

M/S. SLING MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 197/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Hari Prasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 80Section 80G

…se details have not been brought on record by the Assessee before the lower authorities nor before us. He also IT(TP)A No.169 & 149/Bang/2014 placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. IBM World Trade Corpn. (1981) 130 ITR 739 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held the expression "office equipment" used in Sec.33 should be construed in context of appliances which are generally used in office as an aid for proper function of office and that EA machines, data processing machines installation and operation of which is on scientific basis, and which has their…

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8614/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Appellant: Percy J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Jayant Kumar &

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 1O

…rocessing system 22 being articles which are obtained by processing amounts to production. The data processing company must be held to be an industrial company engaged in the production of articles. 7. In the case of CIT v. IBM Word Trade Corporation (1981) 130 ITR 739 (Bom) : TC 28R.211 the Bombay High Court elaborately examined as to what a computer is and what is does, for the purpose of deciding as to whether it is merely an office machine or some thing more. The Court held that in view of the varied functions which the computer "system" is capable of performing data processing machines, cannot be classifie…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HLS INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/194/2005HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: Coming To These Legal Issues It Would Be Pertinent, In The Light Of Facts & Circumstances Of These Cases, First Of All To Succinctly Narrate The Genesis Of Instant Prolonged Tax Dispute Between The Revenue & The Assessee.

Section 260Section 32Section 32ASection 80

…been held to be eligible for investment allowance under section 32A in various judicial pronouncements. 16. Following judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the assessee to support its contention: 1. CIT Vs. IBM World Trade Corporation [130 ITR 739 (Bom)] 2. CIT Vs. Datacons (P) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 66 3. CIT Vs. Peerless Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. [186 ITR 609 (Cal)] 4. CIT Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. [201 ITR 17 (Cal) 5. Ship Scrap Traders Vs. CIT [251 ITR 806 (Bom)] 6. CIT Vs. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [ 262 ITR 55 (Bom)] 7. CIT Vs. Professional Information Systems a…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HLS ASIA LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/296/2010HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 260Section 32Section 32ASection 80

…for investment allowance under section 32A in various judicial pronouncements. 16. Following judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the assessee to support its contention: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. CIT Vs. IBM World Trade Corporation [130 ITR 739· (Born)] CIT Vs. Datacons (P} Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 66 CIT Vs. Peerless Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. [186 ITR 609 (Cal)] CIT Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. [201 ITR 17 (Cal) Ship Scrap Traders Vs. CIT [251 ~TR 806 (Born)] CIT Vs. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [ 262 ITR 55 (Born)] CIT Vs. Professional Information Systems and Management…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HLS INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 194 / 2005HC Delhi11 May 2011

Section 260Section 32Section 32ASection 80