Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. DCIT

20 ITR 14Supreme Court of India2009#23563 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A Section 153A Section 24(b)Section 28(v)

Judgments citing Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. DCIT

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

…nclusion that to bring a case within the section it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure It may be pointed out that an identical view was taken by this court in Eastern Investments Ltd. v/s CIT (1951) 20 ITR 14 (SC) where interpreting the corresponding provision in section 12(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which was ipsissima verba in the same terms as Section 57(1), Bose J speaking on behalf of the Court, observed: “It is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned." It is indeed difficult to see…

TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1069/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 201(1)

…TDS and it was also saddled with interest for the said default. The Ld. AO chose to rely upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in SPX India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 377 as well as decision of Chennai Tribunal in Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2009] 20 ITR 14 wherein it was held that TDS provisions would be applicable to reimbursements also. 4.3 After examining the various stages of warranty process, it was concluded by Ld. AO that what was rendered at the repair shop was a technical service. The assessee was to provide warranty services to the customers at its own costs for the amounts were collected a…

TEMENOS INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1955/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.J. Yeswanth Ram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Helan Ruby Jesintha (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 195Section 201(1)

…of the software nor royalty. 4.3 However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO chose to rely upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in SPX India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 377 as well as decision of other Chennai Tribunal in Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2009] 20 ITR 14 wherein it was held that TDS provisions would be applicable to reimbursements also. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CGI Information Systems & Management Consultants (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (48 Taxmann.com 264) which held that the question for consideration would be whether what is paid by the assess…