CIT v. Amway India Enterprises

346 ITR 341High Court2012#1591 most cited

What is CIT v. Amway India Enterprises authority for?

Expenditure incurred by an assessee on software license purchases, development of miscellaneous software, website maintenance, distributor incentives, market development, and brand promotion is revenue in nature.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amway India Enterprises · 346 ITR 341 · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · Section 37(1) · software license expenses · brand promotion costs · distributor incentives · website maintenance expenditure · business expenditure classification · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

22 Taxmann.com 22

Sections most often in play

Section 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 80HHCSection 28(iiid)Section 143(3)Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 14A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 17(1)section 35ddsection 92asection 36(l)(va)section 35dsection 36(l)section 36(va)enhanced compensationsection 34(1)benchmarking analysissection 80hhcsection 145a

Judgments citing CIT v. Amway India Enterprises

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…sessing officer. 22. The learned authorised representative relied upon CIT v. K. & Co.[2003] 181 CTR (Delhi) 378, Para 4, Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT [(2008) 111 ITD 112 (Delhi) (SB)] affirmed by Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises [2012] 346 ITR 341 (Delhi), (Refer para 6) ,CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.[(2012) 346 ITR 329 (Delhi)] (Refer para 9, 10), Sumitomo Corpn. India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 1 SOT 91 (Delhi), Para 8, Bank of Punjab Ltd. v. Jt. CIT[2002] 122 Taxman 235 (Chd.) (Mag.) ,Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1989] 177 ITR 377 (SC), ,Arch Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT[(…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…sessing officer. 22. The learned authorised representative relied upon CIT v. K. & Co.[2003] 181 CTR (Delhi) 378, Para 4, Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT [(2008) 111 ITD 112 (Delhi) (SB)] affirmed by Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises [2012] 346 ITR 341 (Delhi), (Refer para 6) ,CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.[(2012) 346 ITR 329 (Delhi)] (Refer para 9, 10), Sumitomo Corpn. India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 1 SOT 91 (Delhi), Para 8, Bank of Punjab Ltd. v. Jt. CIT[2002] 122 Taxman 235 (Chd.) (Mag.) ,Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1989] 177 ITR 377 (SC), ,Arch Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT[(…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Projects Ltd., Gurgaon

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5178/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Dlf Projects Ltd. Circle 1(1), (Formerly Dt Projects Ltd.), Vs Gurgaon. 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Arjun Nagar, Dlf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon. (Pan: Aaccd3093R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi, Satyejeet, CAs
Section 192Section 195Section 40

…to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of sister concern DLF Home Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA NO. 4757/Del/12 and the judgments of the Hon’ble reported in [2008] 300 ITR 420 (Del) and CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises reported in (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Delhi). 6.0 We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders passed by lower authorities. As far as ground no 1 of the appeal is concerned, it is seen that the Ld. first appellate authority has deleted the disallowance of project management expenses on account of alleged failure to deduct tax at source after el…

M/S. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 2345/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 41(1)

…ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is aggrieved by such a decision. 12. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del), has held that expenditure incurred on purchase of application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) by holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software is allowable as revenue expenditure, more so, when it is towards p…

M/S. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 2344/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 41(1)

…ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is aggrieved by such a decision. 12. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del), has held that expenditure incurred on purchase of application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) by holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software is allowable as revenue expenditure, more so, when it is towards p…

M/S. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 2343/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 41(1)

…ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is aggrieved by such a decision. 12. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del), has held that expenditure incurred on purchase of application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) by holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software is allowable as revenue expenditure, more so, when it is towards p…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 2272/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 41(1)

…ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is aggrieved by such a decision. 12. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del), has held that expenditure incurred on purchase of application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) by holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software is allowable as revenue expenditure, more so, when it is towards p…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 2271/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 41(1)

…ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is aggrieved by such a decision. 12. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del), has held that expenditure incurred on purchase of application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) by holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software is allowable as revenue expenditure, more so, when it is towards p…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 2270/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 41(1)

…ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is aggrieved by such a decision. 12. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del), has held that expenditure incurred on purchase of application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) by holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software is allowable as revenue expenditure, more so, when it is towards p…

Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 6055/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…ed in [2008] 114 TTJ 476 (Delhi) (SB), wherein it has been held that expenditure incurred on the software is eligible for depreciation @60% and aforesaid order of the Tribunal has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and is reported in [2012] 346 ITR 341 (Delhi). In view thereof, we hold accordingly. 6. It may further be stated here that AO had disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs. 56,000/- on the cost of acquisition of the software of Rs.94,000/-. However, from the perusal of the depreciation chart, it is apparent that opening WDV of block of asset of website development cost was Rs. 48,25…

Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6495/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblerio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Apartment No. 100, Circle 15(1) A/5, Ground Floor, New Delhi. The Capital Court, Ol Of Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacr5591A Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…lized such vehicles in the tax depreciation schedule and no tax depreciation was claimed in this regard. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. IndusInd Bank Ltd. vs. Add. CIT (2012) 15 ITR (T) 89 (Mum) ii. CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del. HC) 5. As relates to ground no. 3 the Ld. AR submitted that during the assessment year the assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 33,55,000/- on lease hold improvements these were in the nature of temporary structures, wooden partition etc. to be erected in the rented premises of the assessee. The above premises were occupied by the assessee…

Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 738/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 4(1) Office Floor 8 Mumbai I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No.Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 4(1) (1) Vs. M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Mumbai Office Floor 8 I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi / Shri Vidhi Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…Raychem RPG Ltd. (346 ITR UNHM-HM )  CIT v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Lid. (226 Taxman135) (Bom.)  CIT v. UHDE India (P.) Ltd. (224 Taxman 137(Bom.)  Amway India Enterprises v. Dy. CIT ( 111 ITD 112(Del Trib) (SB) affirmed in n CIT v. Amway India Enterprises (346 ITR 341(Del HC ')  CIT v. Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd. (.346 ITR 70)(P&H)  CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (203 Taxman 277) (Delhi HC)  CIT v. Varinder Agro Chemicals Lid. (309 ITR 272) (P & H) 11. In the following judicial pronouncements, it has been held that updation / modification for improving the operational efficiency are revenue in nat…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. DCIT-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACL0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 DCIT-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5th floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. AAACL0140P Appellant Respondent Asse…

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 6(3)

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Dcit, Range 6(3) (Erstwhile Known As Room No. 576, Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 6(2) (Erstwhile Known As Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Marg, Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Arati Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)

…3.2 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the order of his predecessor-in- office for the AY 2003-04 and upheld the above disallowance made by the AO. 3.3 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in CIT v. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Delhi) and CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329(Delhi). 3.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 3.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In Amway India Enterprises (supra), it has been held that the purchase of software is a revenue expenditure. Kan…

M/S Corrnell Overseas Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5171/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5171/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Cornell Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-1, Panchsheel Enclave, Circle-3(1), New Delhi-110017 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.07.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Levied By The Ao On The Additions Of Rs.1,95,320/- & Rs.8,28,304/- On Account Of Disallowances Of Legal & Professional Charges & Repair & Maintenance Expenses Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…t repair. Hon’ble Delhi High Court also in the following cases taken the same view: (i) CIT Vs Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 182 (Delhi High Court); (ii) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2006) 155 Taxman 559 (Delhi HC); (iii) CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del.) 4. Ld. DR even though vehemently relied on the order of the authorities below but could not brought to our knowledge any contrary decision which has taken a different view. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made on account of the repair and maintenance expenses.” 6. Furthermore, on a similar i…

Buildbyte.Com (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7350/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Pavan VedFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.7350 /Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) M/s. Buildbyte.com (India) ACIT, Central Circle-36 Pvt. Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 511, Dalamal Tower, Free Vs. Mumbai 400020 Press Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 PAN – AABCB5417G Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Pavan Ved Respondent by: Shri Suman Kumar Date of Hearing: 13.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 13.09.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the…

Siemens Technology and Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4165/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasadsiemens Information Systems V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited Tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 Pan : Aaacs 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri E.Sankaran
Section 10ASection 250

…Tribunal considered similar issue in the Assessment Year 2004–05 and by following the order of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Amway India Enterprise and also the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT v. Amway India Enterprises” (346 ITR 341) held that software consumable expenses are revenue in nature. Respectfully following the said Order, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the grounds of revenue on this issue. 26. Now we deal with the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005–06 in ITA No.6299/Mum/2011. 27. Ground No.1 is regarding disallowan…

Siemens Information Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6299/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasadsiemens Information Systems V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited Tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 Pan : Aaacs 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri E.Sankaran
Section 10ASection 250

…Tribunal considered similar issue in the Assessment Year 2004–05 and by following the order of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Amway India Enterprise and also the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT v. Amway India Enterprises” (346 ITR 341) held that software consumable expenses are revenue in nature. Respectfully following the said Order, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the grounds of revenue on this issue. 26. Now we deal with the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005–06 in ITA No.6299/Mum/2011. 27. Ground No.1 is regarding disallowan…

Price Waterhouse Coppers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 2, Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2033/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No.1521/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCP9181H) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2033/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.1523/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Circle-…

D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Price Water House Coopers Pvt., Kolkata

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1523/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No.1521/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCP9181H) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2033/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.1523/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Circle-…