CIT v. Bharat Television P Ltd.

218 ITR 173High Court1996#23669 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Television P Ltd.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…raction of law [Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT, (1993) 201 ITR 684, 690-91(SC) ; Standard Batteries Ltd. v. err, (J995) 211 ITR 444, 446(SC) ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. err. (1998) 233 ITR 199, 202(SC) ; CIT v. Bharat Television Pvt. Ltd_, (1996) 218 ITR 173, 175, J 78(AP) ; CIT v , Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 113. 121 (AP) . 10. In view of the above, the above, the amount of GBP 11.8 million payable by Mylan, being the same amount received from Servier under Article 23(2) of the EU Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, which is called fine is nothing but compensatory doesn't fall within…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…raction of law [Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT, (1993) 201 ITR 684, 690-91(SC) ; Standard Batteries Ltd. v. err, (J995) 211 ITR 444, 446(SC) ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. err. (1998) 233 ITR 199, 202(SC) ; CIT v. Bharat Television Pvt. Ltd_, (1996) 218 ITR 173, 175, J 78(AP) ; CIT v , Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 113. 121 (AP) . 10. In view of the above, the above, the amount of GBP 11.8 million payable by Mylan, being the same amount received from Servier under Article 23(2) of the EU Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, which is called fine is nothing but compensatory doesn't fall within…

D.C.I.T Cir - 7, Kolata, Kolkata vs. M/S Ripley & Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ses, the impost may be composite comprising of element of compensatory nature as well as penalty nature. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhrapradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharat Television P Ltd reported in (1996) 218 ITR 173 (AP). 8. It is not in dispute that the demurrage and / or punitive charges were deducted from the bill raised by the assessee in its ordinary course of its business. We find that the Ld AO had misconstrued the nature of demurrage and / or punitive chages as being paid for infraction of law and opposed to public policy thereby disallowing the sam…

CIT v. Bharat Television P Ltd. (218 ITR 173) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax