CIT-LTU v. Texas Instruments India (P.) Ltd.

435 ITR 1High Court2021#14202 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 80JJAA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

new employeesretention moneysection 80jjasection 80jjaaadditional depreciationmercantile system of accountingprofits and gains of business or professionrevenue expendituresection 37section 80companysection 148

Judgments citing CIT-LTU v. Texas Instruments India (P.) Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 911/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…se for AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14; and disallowed ₹1,30,75,819/-. 15. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Texas Instruments [2021] 435 ITR 1 (Karnataka) and allowed this grounds of appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the employees who were recruited in preceding year but completed period of 300 days during the year under consideration hav…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 910/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…se for AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14; and disallowed ₹1,30,75,819/-. 15. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Texas Instruments [2021] 435 ITR 1 (Karnataka) and allowed this grounds of appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the employees who were recruited in preceding year but completed period of 300 days during the year under consideration hav…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 909/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…se for AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14; and disallowed ₹1,30,75,819/-. 15. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Texas Instruments [2021] 435 ITR 1 (Karnataka) and allowed this grounds of appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the employees who were recruited in preceding year but completed period of 300 days during the year under consideration hav…

Captain Steel India Limited, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjoy Kejriwal & Shri SiddharthFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 80J

…80JJAA of the Act for Rs.61,64,176/-. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of International Tractors Ltd. (supra) and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Texus Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 435 ITR 1 (Kar.). Since the claim was made at the first appellate stage by way of raising an additional ground, assessee placed its reliance on the following judgments to support its contentions: (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC); (ii) Addl. CIT Vs. Gurfargravures Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC); 3 Captain Steel India Ltd.,…

Craftsman Automation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 652/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.652/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.N.ArjunrajFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…ll apply for the AY 2019-20 and subsequent years but it has retrospective operation. For this, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT-LTU v. Texas Instruments India (P.) Ltd., reported in 435 ITR 1 (Karnataka). This provision was explained by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and held that the amendment brought by the legislature w.e.f.01.04.2019 by the Finance Act, 2018 though claimed curative, the same is more explanatory amendment or a clarificatory amendment which clarifies the methodology of applying the provisions of Sec.80JJAA of the…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

…lore Page 11 of 18 7.2 The Ld. A.R. submitted that an identical disallowance made by the A.O. in assessment year 2008-09 was deleted by the Tribunal and the order passed by Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in (2021) 435 ITR 1. 7.3 We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue and perused the record. We notice that an identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case in assessment year 2008-09. The relevant discussions made by the Hon’ble High Court on this issue are extracted below:- “17. Answer to Question N…

M/S Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

…lore Page 11 of 18 7.2 The Ld. A.R. submitted that an identical disallowance made by the A.O. in assessment year 2008-09 was deleted by the Tribunal and the order passed by Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in (2021) 435 ITR 1. 7.3 We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue and perused the record. We notice that an identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case in assessment year 2008-09. The relevant discussions made by the Hon’ble High Court on this issue are extracted below:- “17. Answer to Question N…

CIT-LTU v. Texas Instruments India (P.) Ltd. (435 ITR 1) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax