110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works

121 ITR 510High Court1980#18854 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2016.

Judgments citing 110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works

JCIT(OSD), Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the CO of assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 36/KOL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak & Shri Harish Agarwal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e expenditure is declared by assessee in its accounts and computation of income with the return of income. Even otherwise, on merits, the issue is covered by the order of jurisdictional High court in the case of Agarwal Hardware Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 510 (Cal), wherein it is held that the expenditure incurred for payment of royalty for patents on percentage basis of annual production where the ownership rights of patents are retained by the owners, the expenditure is revenue in nature. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Calcutta High court in CIT Vs. B. N. Elias & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 190…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Munjal Showa Ltd

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to

ITA/85/2009HC Delhi06 Sept 2010
Section 143(3)

…bic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd., [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC), CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1), [1977] 110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works, [1976] 102 ITR 187 (Mad), and Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 121 ITR 510 (Cal), held thus: “It would thus appear that the courts have applied different tests like starting of a new business on the basis of technical know-how received from the foreign firm, the exclusive right of the company to use the patent or trademark which it receives from the foreign firm, the payment made by the company to the foreign fir…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Munjal Showa Ltd

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to

ITA/86/2009HC Delhi06 Sept 2010
Section 143(3)

…bic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd., [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC), CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1), [1977] 110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works, [1976] 102 ITR 187 (Mad), and Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 121 ITR 510 (Cal), held thus: “It would thus appear that the courts have applied different tests like starting of a new business on the basis of technical know-how received from the foreign firm, the exclusive right of the company to use the patent or trademark which it receives from the foreign firm, the payment made by the company to the foreign fir…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s DCM Technologies Limited

ITA/861/2010HC Delhi15 Jul 2010
Section 260A

…ordships also referred to the decisions in CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC); CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1) (1977) 110 ITR 338 (Mad); CIT v. Sarada Binding Works (1976) 102 ITR 187 (Mad.); Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 510 (Cal); CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 538 (Bom.); Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.(supra) and eventually came to hold thus: “It would thus appear that the courts have applied different tests like starting of a new business on the basis of technical kno…

110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works (121 ITR 510) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax