Ador Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT

112 TTJ 24Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#14702 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Ador Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…. vs IAC: [1995] 52 TTJ 198 (Del) iii. CIT vs Aero Club: [2011] 336 ITR 400 (Del) iv. Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) v. Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO: [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) vi. Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007) 112 TTJ 24 (Pune) 75. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 76. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the AO has disallowed 2% of the dividend received by the assessee on the basis that it is attributable towards earning of the such income. As held in the case of Reliance Industries…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8286/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…age 9 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) • Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) • Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT (2.007) 112 TTJ 24 (Pune) (D.1) The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue relied on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. (D.2) It is not in dispute that the issue regarding disallowance of royalty expenses, in the present appeals before us, is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue vide aforesaid orders in M/s. Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd. (sup…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8285/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…age 9 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) • Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) • Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT (2.007) 112 TTJ 24 (Pune) (D.1) The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue relied on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. (D.2) It is not in dispute that the issue regarding disallowance of royalty expenses, in the present appeals before us, is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue vide aforesaid orders in M/s. Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd. (sup…

Cable and Wireless (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6075/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 756/Mum/2017 Cable & Wireless (India) Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Bmr & Associates Bmr House, (International Taxation),Circle-2(1)(1), 36B, R.K. Shirodkar Marg, Parel, Vs. R. No. 1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 012 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

…tional Industrial Corpn. Limited vs. CIT (2002) 124 Taxman 413 (Del). Also, a similar view had been taken by ITAT, Ahmedabad in Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) and ITAT, Pune in Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 112 TTJ 24 (Pune). Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations we are unable to uphold the ad hoc disallowance of 30% of the amount of expenses reimbursed by the assessee to CWNIPL. (F). Lastly, we may herein observe, that the DRP while disposing off the objections of the assessee for the year under consideration, had observed, that in absence o…

Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…nal or non-business component. In support of this, the Appellant would like to place reliance on the following decisions:  Sayaji Iron & Engg Co. Vs. CIT (2002) (253 ITR 749) (Guj) (Refer pages 1063 to 1067 of the Paper Book)  Ador Technologies Ltd v DCIT (112 TTJ 24) (Pune ITAT) (Refer pages 1068 to 1083 of the Paper Book)  Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v DCIT (112 TTJ 437) (Pune ITAT) (Refer pages 1084 to 1090 of the Paper Book)  Bajaj Finance Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1175 and 1273/PN/2012) (Pune ITAT) (Refer pages 1091 to 1100 of the Paper Book) 41. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the order…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…nal or non-business component. In support of this, the Appellant would like to place reliance on the following decisions:  Sayaji Iron & Engg Co. Vs. CIT (2002) (253 ITR 749) (Guj) (Refer pages 1063 to 1067 of the Paper Book)  Ador Technologies Ltd v DCIT (112 TTJ 24) (Pune ITAT) (Refer pages 1068 to 1083 of the Paper Book)  Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v DCIT (112 TTJ 437) (Pune ITAT) (Refer pages 1084 to 1090 of the Paper Book)  Bajaj Finance Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1175 and 1273/PN/2012) (Pune ITAT) (Refer pages 1091 to 1100 of the Paper Book) 41. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the order…

Ador Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT (112 TTJ 24) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax