Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT (LTU)

144 ITD 403Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#12161 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT (LTU)

The ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…appeal, after examining the provisions of section 32 and interpreting the same in the light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673), the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Brakes India vs. DCIT (144 ITD 403), the decision of the ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (45 taxmann.com 337(Cochin- Trib.), the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal india Private Limited (380 ITR 428)/(66 taxmann.com 4) and other judicial decisions, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of additional depreciation. 6. The Ld. DR rel…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…appeal, after examining the provisions of section 32 and interpreting the same in the light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673), the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Brakes India vs. DCIT (144 ITD 403), the decision of the ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (45 taxmann.com 337(Cochin- Trib.), the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal india Private Limited (380 ITR 428)/(66 taxmann.com 4) and other judicial decisions, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of additional depreciation. 6. The Ld. DR rel…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Rane (Madras) Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2789/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 40Section 9(2)

…force as prevailing on the date of credit to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereon. We find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. AR on the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd., Vs. DCIT (LTU) reported in 144 ITD 403 is very well founded. The Operative portion of this order is already reproduced herein above. The reliance placed by the decision of co-ordinate bench of Agra Tribunal in the case of Metro & Metro Vs ACIT returned in 147 ITD 207 (Agra) is also well founded. In the case of property, the decision rendered thereon is not reiterated herein. 6.2 Admit…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Rane (Madras) Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2788/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 40Section 9(2)

…force as prevailing on the date of credit to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereon. We find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. AR on the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd., Vs. DCIT (LTU) reported in 144 ITD 403 is very well founded. The Operative portion of this order is already reproduced herein above. The reliance placed by the decision of co-ordinate bench of Agra Tribunal in the case of Metro & Metro Vs ACIT returned in 147 ITD 207 (Agra) is also well founded. In the case of property, the decision rendered thereon is not reiterated herein. 6.2 Admit…

Dignity Innovations, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 265/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karanakuran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010, vide order dated 21.11.2014, and same view was also taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd, 367 ITR 155 (Mad) and further in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (144 ITD 403) the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that 47. In our opinion, nature of services mentioned above will come not within the definition of “fees for technical services” given under explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. By virtue of such services, the concerned recipients had not made available to the assessee any new technic…

DCIT vs. Treads Direct Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2794/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 M/s. Treadsdirect Limited, Vs. The Joint Commissioner of NO.2000, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Singanallur, Range-I, Coimbatore 641 005. Coimbatore [PAN AAACE 9328C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2941/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 The Joint…

Treadsdirect Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2794/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2794/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 M/s. Treadsdirect Limited, Vs. The Joint Commissioner of NO.2000, Trichy Road, Income Tax, Singanallur, Range-I, Coimbatore 641 005. Coimbatore [PAN AAACE 9328C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2941/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 The Joint…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M.M.Forgings Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2679/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2679/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011 -2012)

For Appellant: Shri. Krishnamurthy, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…/2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010, vide order dated 21.11.2014, and same view was also taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd, 367 ITR 155 (Mad) and further in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (144 ITD 403) the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that 47. In our opinion, nature of services mentioned above will come not within the definition of “fees for technical services” given under explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. By virtue of such services, the concerned recipients had not made available to the assessee any new technic…