Biharilal Beni Prasad v. CIT

35 ITR 576Reported decision#20688 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2020.

Judgments citing Biharilal Beni Prasad v. CIT

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…in nature. The ld AO based on the above direction disallowed the above sum. 12. On appeal, ld CIT(A) further strengthened views of the ld AO and Addl. CIT by referring to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 27 ITR 34 and of Hon. Punjab High court in 35 ITR 576. He further held that manufacturing agreement could be terminated only after three years of operation after giving a 12 months‘ advance notice. Thus, there is no doubt that the advantage flowing to assessee is for a considerably long time and resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to ri…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…in nature. The ld AO based on the above direction disallowed the above sum. 12. On appeal, ld CIT(A) further strengthened views of the ld AO and Addl. CIT by referring to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 27 ITR 34 and of Hon. Punjab High court in 35 ITR 576. He further held that manufacturing agreement could be terminated only after three years of operation after giving a 12 months‘ advance notice. Thus, there is no doubt that the advantage flowing to assessee is for a considerably long time and resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to ri…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…in nature. The ld AO based on the above direction disallowed the above sum. 12. On appeal, ld CIT(A) further strengthened views of the ld AO and Addl. CIT by referring to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 27 ITR 34 and of Hon. Punjab High court in 35 ITR 576. He further held that manufacturing agreement could be terminated only after three years of operation after giving a 12 months‘ advance notice. Thus, there is no doubt that the advantage flowing to assessee is for a considerably long time and resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to ri…

DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 2845/MUM/2002[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2845/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited Jcit-Special Range-22 Ground Floor, A Wing Mumbai बनाम/ One Bkc, G Block Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 05 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-0535-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. DR
Section 80

…he business was to be carried on unfettered by rival competitors which would endure and the benefit would last beyond five years. The view we are taking is in consonance with the view of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Biharilal Beni Prasad V CIT 35 ITR 576 though the facts that case were different. It is also in consonance with a view of Allahabad High Court in the case of Neel Kamal Talkies V CIT 87 ITR 691 is also with the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Blaze and Central Private Limited V CIT 120 ITR 33 though in that case also facts were different.' Thus the courts have held that an…

Biharilal Beni Prasad v. CIT (35 ITR 576) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax