91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd.

1 SOT 347Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#6937 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitsection 9(2)section 46adisallowance of interest expendituresection 9(1)(vii)enduring benefitsection 40(a)(i)fees for technical servicessection 2(24)(x)permanent establishmentsection 36(1)(iii)tax deducted at source

Judgments citing 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd.

EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI)PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 754/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…vestment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1999) 225 ITR 802 (SC) followed by the Ahmedabad B Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Amtrex Applications Ltd (2005) 94 TT J (Ahd) 396 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A' in ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd reported in (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 8 .In the light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions cited the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the expenditure of Rs.1,59,03,000/- as claimed or, in the alternative, allow the entire expenditure of Rs.4,64,31,000/- in determining the income of the year. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC erred i…

EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI)PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 737/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…vestment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1999) 225 ITR 802 (SC) followed by the Ahmedabad B Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Amtrex Applications Ltd (2005) 94 TT J (Ahd) 396 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A' in ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd reported in (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 8 .In the light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions cited the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the expenditure of Rs.1,59,03,000/- as claimed or, in the alternative, allow the entire expenditure of Rs.4,64,31,000/- in determining the income of the year. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC erred i…

EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI)PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 730/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…vestment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1999) 225 ITR 802 (SC) followed by the Ahmedabad B Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Amtrex Applications Ltd (2005) 94 TT J (Ahd) 396 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A' in ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd reported in (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 8 .In the light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions cited the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the expenditure of Rs.1,59,03,000/- as claimed or, in the alternative, allow the entire expenditure of Rs.4,64,31,000/- in determining the income of the year. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC erred i…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS(MADURAI) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…vestment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1999) 225 ITR 802 (SC) followed by the Ahmedabad B Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Amtrex Applications Ltd (2005) 94 TT J (Ahd) 396 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A' in ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd reported in (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 8 .In the light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions cited the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the expenditure of Rs.1,59,03,000/- as claimed or, in the alternative, allow the entire expenditure of Rs.4,64,31,000/- in determining the income of the year. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC erred i…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 523/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…mself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it presupposes that the concerned expenditure, creating benefit is in the revenue field and is a revenue expenditure, but con…

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 472/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…mself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it presupposes that the concerned expenditure, creating benefit is in the revenue field and is a revenue expenditure, but con…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 336/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…mself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it presupposes that the concerned expenditure, creating benefit is in the revenue field and is a revenue expenditure, but con…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 285/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…mself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it presupposes that the concerned expenditure, creating benefit is in the revenue field and is a revenue expenditure, but con…

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

ITA 328/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 40

…ed by the ITAT and upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd, v. Asstt.CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), it.CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt.CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. it.CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. it. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it presupposes that the concerned expenditure, creating benefit is in the revenue field and is a revenue expenditure, but cons…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CITI FINANCIAL COSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…venue expenditure. That is why AO himself allowed the l/5th of the amount.. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. ACIT [(2004) 91 1TD 280 (Hyd)J, JCIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [(2005)4 SOT 859 (Delhi)], ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [(2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi)],Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [(2005) 3 SOT 572 (Delhi)] ;Charak Pharmaceuticals v. JCIT [(2005) 4SOT 393 ITA No.- 3118/Del/2016. M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. &5191,2687&2688/Del./2010 (Mumbai)], and ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd., 117 ITD 1 (Ahd.)(SB)it has been affirmed that where any expenditu…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. L&T SUCG JV CC27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 4457/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Goel, C.As And Shri Nirbhay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…2 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that part of such expenditure was carried to balance-sheet as deferred revenue expenditure. Same view is taken in the case of ACIT vs. Medicaman Biotech Ltd., 1 SOT 347, JCIT vs. Charka Pharmaceuticals 4 SOT 393 and CIT vs. Modi Oliveti Ltd., 38 taxmann.com 113. 37. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon Orders of the authorities below and submitted that design charges are for whole of the period of the contract having enduring benefit. Therefore, whole expenditure cannot be allowed. It was deferred revenue expen…

L&T SUCG JV CC27,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-62, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 4351/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Goel, C.As And Shri Nirbhay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…2 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that part of such expenditure was carried to balance-sheet as deferred revenue expenditure. Same view is taken in the case of ACIT vs. Medicaman Biotech Ltd., 1 SOT 347, JCIT vs. Charka Pharmaceuticals 4 SOT 393 and CIT vs. Modi Oliveti Ltd., 38 taxmann.com 113. 37. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon Orders of the authorities below and submitted that design charges are for whole of the period of the contract having enduring benefit. Therefore, whole expenditure cannot be allowed. It was deferred revenue expen…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CITI FINANCIAL COSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2638/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhito, Ward 6 (2), Vs. M/S. Citi Financial Consumer Finance New Delhi. India Ltd., 3, Local Shopping Centre, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabca3223B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Order : 23.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 92C

…e 11 expenditure. That is why AO himself allowed the 1/5th of the amount.. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. ACIT [(2004) 91 ITD 280 (Hyd)], JCIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [(2005)4 SOT 859 (Delhi)], ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [(2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi)],Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [(2005) 3 SOT 572 (Delhi)];Charak Pharmaceuticals v. JCIT [(2005) 4SOT 393 40 ITA nos.3144&3145,5514 &5191,2687&2688/Del./2010 (Mumbai)],and ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.,117 ITD 1(Ahd.)(SB)it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. DYNOMERK CONTROLS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(2)

…or dismissing the appeal of Revenue. In support of his contentions, the ld.A.R. placed reliance on following decisions : 4 1. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. Vs. ACIT 91 ITD 280. 2. JCIT Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd. 4 SOT 859 (Delhi). 3. ACIT Vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 4. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. JCIT 3 SOT 572 (Delhi). 5. Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs. JCIT 4SOT 393. 6. Madras Industrial Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 802. 7. Kedatnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 SC. 5. Shri M.K. Verma representing the Department submitted that huge expenditure has been incurred by assessee for produ…

M/S. BIOTRONIK MEDICAL DEVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 2427/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…O. He relied on following decisions: " CIT Vs Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (201 1) 335 ITR 29 (Del) " Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.) " JCIT Vs Modi Olivetti Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 859 (Delhi) " ACIT Vs Medicamen Biotech Ltd. (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi) " Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs JCIT (2005) 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) " Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs JCIT (2005) 4 SOT 393 (Mumbai) " CIT Vs Industrial Finance Corporation of India (2209) 185 Taxman 296 (Delhi) " ACIT Vs Ashina Syntex Lid. (ITA Nos. 2001 & 2002, A HD (Spl. Bench) " CIT Vs Pancea Biotech Ltd. (ITA No. 22/2012) (Del). 10 We have considered…

BAYER CROP SCIENCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 7818/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 7818/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Bayer CropScience Limited Addl. CIT-10(3) Bayer House, Central Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Avenue, Hiranandani 4th Floor Gardens, Powai M.K. Road Mumbai-400 076. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAACB9651K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Paras S. Savla Department by Shri Suman Kumar Date of Hearing 8.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.9.2011 pas…