CIT v. Ashoka Mills Ltd.

218 ITR 526High Court1996#13101 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashoka Mills Ltd.

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Efs Facilities Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8347/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 92C

…RT OF MADRAS CIT v. Aquapump Industries • [2010] 323 ITR 498 (MP) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CIT v. Khemchand and Motilal Jain Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. which held that payment of royalty for use of trade mark is allowable as revenue expenditures. • [1998] 231 ITR 598 (Gujarat) High Court Of Gujarat CIT v. Raipur Mfg. Co. where Gujrat High Court held that The expenditure incurred by the assessee-company for payment of the trade mark was a revenue expenditure. • [1987] 34 Taxman 184 (Bombay) High Court Of Bombay Gannon Norton Metal Diamond Dies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax where it was held that payments…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Efs Facilities Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8346/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 92C

Shri. Manuprasad Trivedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7270/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Jain DixitFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…luntary Disclosure Scheme and tax was paid in installments with interest, interest paid was held not: deductible as business expenditure or as interest on borrowed I.T.A. No.979/Del/2015 capital, In the cases of CIT v. Ashoka Mills Ltd. [1996] 88 Taxman 187 / 218 ITR 526 (Guj) and 6 ITA Nos.7270 to 7272/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 Shri Manuprasad Trivedi Mukesh Bros Vs. DCIT, CC-5(1) CIT v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd [19961 135 CTR (Guj.) 248, it has been held that interest paid under section 220(2) for late payment of income tax is not deductible as revenue expenditure, In the case of Orient General Ind…

M/S Telco Construction Co.Ltd vs. The Asst Commissioner

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/101/2016HC Karnataka20 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260ASection 37(1)

…cisions in 'CIT VS. CIBA OF INDIA LTD.', 69 ITR 692, CIT VS. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD', 232 ITR 316, 'PCIT VS. WESTERN AGRI SEEDS LTD', 'CIT VS. J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD.', 309 ITR 371, 'CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT', 319 ITR 113, 'CIT VS. ASHOKA MILLS LTD', 218 ITR 526, CIT VS. 9 HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.', ITA NO.3/2009 and 'CIT VS. LUWA INDIA LTD', 75 DTR 367. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee came into existence by virtue of technical licence agreement and therefore, payment under the agreement is capital expenditure. In this conne…

DCIT, Jamshepur vs. M/S Hard Rock Fabrication (P) Ltd, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 26/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Inderjit Singh, CIT, ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ant stated that the AO is not justified in making disallowance of Rs. 1961/- as he did not bring any material facts as to how it is an allowable deduction. There are several decision in favour of revenue which are as under:- a. CIT vs. Ashoka Mills Ltd (1996) 218 ITR 526 Gujrat b. CIT vs. Raipur Manufacturing Company Ltd 135 CTR 248 Gujrat c. CIT vs. Saraspur Mils (1997) 226 ITR 533 Gujrat d. Bharat Commerce Industries vs. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC) Where it has been held that interest paid under any provision of the IT Act, W.T Act etc for late payment or short payment of advance tax, self assessment tax, TDS a…

Gmr Airport Developers Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain &For Respondent: Shri M. Naveen, DR

…ents have been allowed by the AO in the later assessment years. Ld. Counsel relied on the judicial pronouncements in the case :- 5 -: I.T.A. No. 806/Hyd/2017 of Bhaktimala Beedi Factory Vs. CIT [219 ITR 6] (AP) and in the case of CIT Vs. Ashoka Mills Ltd., [218 ITR 526] (Gujarat) and in the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd., Vs. CIT [92 taxmann.com 368] (Delhi). It was the submission that the amount is allowable as revenue expenditure. 5.1. Without prejudice to the above, it was also submitted that in the event the said amount paid is treated as capital asset, assesse…

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 979/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-979/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) Control Risks India Pvt.Ltd., Vs DCIT, 604, Copia Corporate Suites, Circle-6(2), Jasola Complex, New Delhi New Delhi-110025. PAN-AADCC3008J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh.Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepika Agarwal, CA Revenue by Sh.Kaushalendra Tiwari, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 30.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement 27.09.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present appeal has been filed by t…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Telco Construction Equipments Co. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 667/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. S. Anantha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT – DR-I

…was that there was no enduring benefit received by it. Specific reliance was placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd [(2012) 345 ITR 241], Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgments in the case of CIT v. Ashoka Mills Ltd [(1996) 218 ITR 526] and CIT v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [(1998) 231 ITR 598]. CIT(A) was appreciative of these contentions. According to him, assessee’s agreement with HCCL was one for technology sales, where no lumpsum knowhow fees was to be paid by the assessee. As per the CIT (A), payment of royalty was a percentage of the sales and this by itself reflected its…