CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.

69 ITR 692Supreme Court of India1968#1741 most cited

What is CIT v. Ciba India Ltd. authority for?

Payments for the use of technical know-how or intellectual property, which grant a right to use rather than an outright transfer of ownership, are deductible revenue expenditures as they do not create an enduring benefit, especially in fields with rapid technological obsolescence.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ciba India Ltd. · 69 ITR 692 · Section 9(1)(vi) · know-how expenditure · enduring benefit · revenue expenditure · business deduction · sale vs. license · right to use · intellectual property · computer software · royalty income

Sections most often in play

Section 115ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)(c)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Issues it is cited on

section 9(l)(vi)copyrighted articleweighted deductionsection 35(2ab)royalty incomecsr expenditurecomputer softwarebusiness connectionsection 9(1)(vi)enduring benefitsection 10(34)business expediency

Judgments citing CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

…re is transferred to the payer. There is no transfer of ownership rights. Various decisions of the Supreme Courts and High Courts clarify that sales constitutes out and out transfer, whereas in license there is only right to use. Some of these decision are at 69 ITR 692 (SC), 236 ITR 314 (ASC), 811 ITR 243, 671 ITR 227. Thus this reasoning of the assessee has no legal or factual basis. In this case, the user only has a right and gets a license to use the software. Even in the OECD commentary it is mentioned that the character of payments received in transactions involving the transfer of computer software depends…

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

…re is transferred to the payer. There is no transfer of ownership rights. Various decisions of the Supreme Courts and High Courts clarify that sales constitutes out and out transfer, whereas in license there is only right to use. Some of these decision are at 69 ITR 692 (SC), 236 ITR 314 (ASC), 811 ITR 243, 671 ITR 227. Thus this reasoning of the assessee has no legal or factual basis. In this case, the user only has a right and gets a license to use the software. Even in the OECD commentary it is mentioned that the character of payments received in transactions involving the transfer of computer software depends…

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,SAN DIEGO vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE MINTO ROAD

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

ITA 3742/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshqualcomm Incorporated, Vs. Dcit, 5775, Morehouse Drive, Circle-3(1), San Diego, California, International Taxation, Usa, 92121, Usa New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacq1484H Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv Ms. Jasmin Amalsadavala, Adv Shri Zoheb Balwani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…re is transferred to the payer. There is no transfer of ownership rights. Various decisions of the Supreme Courts and High Courts clarify that sales constitutes out and out transfer, whereas in license there is only right to use. Some of these decision are at 69 ITR 692 (SC), 236 ITR 314 (ASC), 811 ITR 243, 671 ITR 227. Thus this reasoning of the assessee has no legal or factual basis. In this case, the user only has a right and gets a license to use the software. Even in the OECD commentary it is mentioned that the character of payments received in transactions involving the transfer of computer Qualcomm Incorpo…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…rred by the company for an on-going business does not create enduring benefit in view of rapid obsolescence in technology as has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. v CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) & CIT v. Ciba India Ltd 69 ITR 692 (SC). The said expenditure was incurred with respect to achieving better operational capabilities and therefore, the said expenditure ought to be allowed as a deduction.” 63. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that what is relevant in this transaction is whether the know-how purchased by the assessee will have an enduring benefit or not. In this…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…rred by the company for an on-going business does not create enduring benefit in view of rapid obsolescence in technology as has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. v CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) & CIT v. Ciba India Ltd 69 ITR 692 (SC). The said expenditure was incurred with respect to achieving better operational capabilities and therefore, the said expenditure ought to be allowed as a deduction.” 63. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that what is relevant in this transaction is whether the know-how purchased by the assessee will have an enduring benefit or not. In this…

THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SHREYANSHNATH DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 3053/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2007-08 Ito, Ward-3(2)(5) Shree Shreyansnath Developers Ahmedabad. Vs Block No.832, Binor Bungalows Ghuma Gam Tal. Daskroi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaxfs 3932 L

Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…rned Tribunal and has also gone through the factualaspect as to whether who has taken risk of the whole project undertaken by the appellant by virtue of 13 Development Agreement. Reliance is placed on the ratio in the case of Motor & General Stores Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 692 (SC) which is "the name 7, to a transaction by the parties concerned does not necessarily decide the f transaction, the question a/ways is what is the real character of the transaction and not what parties call it". Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. 1966 AIR 1178 (SC) says "where terms of transaction are embodied…

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…re is transferred to the payer. There is no transfer of ownership rights. Various decisions of the Supreme Courts and High Courts clarify that sales constitutes out and out transfer, whereas in license there is only right to use. Some of these decision are at 69 ITR 692 (SC), 236 ITR 314 (ASC), 811 ITR 243, 671 ITR 227. Thus this reasoning of the assessee has no legal or factual basis. In this case, the user only has a right and gets a license to use the software. Even in the OECD commentary it is mentioned that the character of payments received in transactions involving the transfer of computer software depends…

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

…re is transferred to the payer. There is no transfer of ownership rights. Various decisions of the Supreme Courts and High Courts clarify that sales constitutes out and out transfer, whereas in license there is only right to use. Some of these decision are at 69 ITR 692 (SC), 236 ITR 314 (ASC), 811 ITR 243, 671 ITR 227. Thus this reasoning of the assessee has no legal or factual basis. In this case, the user only has a right and gets a license to use the software. Even in the OECD commentary it is mentioned that the character of payments received in transactions involving the transfer of computer software depends…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…during advantage in the capital field. The exclusive license only enables the business of the appellant to be carried on more efficiently and profitably, while leaving the fixed capital untouched. He further relied upon the decisions of CIT vs Ciba India Ltd. 69 ITR 692 (SC); CIT vs IAEC (pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (SC); Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. vs CIT 127 ITR 746 (Del.); Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs CIT 136 ITR 340 (Del.); CIT vs Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons (P.) Ltd. 158 ITR 195 (Del.); CIT vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 372 ITR 481 (Del.) apart from other case laws. Further submission was made that there…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…during advantage in the capital field. The exclusive license only enables the business of the appellant to be carried on more efficiently and profitably, while leaving the fixed capital untouched. He further relied upon the decisions of CIT vs Ciba India Ltd. 69 ITR 692 (SC); CIT vs IAEC (pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (SC); Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. vs CIT 127 ITR 746 (Del.); Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs CIT 136 ITR 340 (Del.); CIT vs Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons (P.) Ltd. 158 ITR 195 (Del.); CIT vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 372 ITR 481 (Del.) apart from other case laws. Further submission was made that there…

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…held that where payment is made to simply use the technical know- how/knowledge provided by the foreign collaborator as opposed to 48 acquisition of ownership rights therein, the payment made would be regarded as revenue expenditure. - CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.: 69 ITR 692 (SC) - CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 (SC) - Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) - Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746 (Del HC) - Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT : 136 ITR 340 (Del) - Addl. CIT vs. Shama Engine Valves Ltd. : 138 ITR 217 (Del) - CIT vs. Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons P.…

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 572/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 & 572/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. M/S.Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – Sivanandam, Of Income Tax, No.1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle-5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai- 600 030. [Pan: Aadcr 5531 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

…t right to use the technical know-how which can be revoked any time. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT, 412 ITR 436, after analyzing the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CIBA of India Ltd, 69 ITR 692, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 124 ITR 1 and Alembic Chemical Works Ltd vs. CIT, 177 ITR 377 had held that license is only mere right to use the technical knowhow or trade mark. From the perusal of the license agreement, it is clear that appellant is conferred only right to use technical knowhow. The ownership always lies with licensor and the asse…

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 571/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 & 572/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. M/S.Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – Sivanandam, Of Income Tax, No.1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle-5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai- 600 030. [Pan: Aadcr 5531 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

…t right to use the technical know-how which can be revoked any time. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT, 412 ITR 436, after analyzing the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CIBA of India Ltd, 69 ITR 692, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 124 ITR 1 and Alembic Chemical Works Ltd vs. CIT, 177 ITR 377 had held that license is only mere right to use the technical knowhow or trade mark. From the perusal of the license agreement, it is clear that appellant is conferred only right to use technical knowhow. The ownership always lies with licensor and the asse…

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 570/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT
Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…t right to use the technical knowhow which can be revoked any time. Recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd vs. CIT, 412 ITR 436, after analyzing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs CIBA of India Ltd, 69 ITR 692, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 124 ITR T and Alembic Chemical works ltd vs CIT, 177 ITR 377 had held that license is only mere right to use the technical knowhow or trade mark. From the perusal of the license agreement, it is clear that appellant is conferred only right to use technical knowhow. The ownership always lies with licensor and the asses…

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), , CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 476/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT
Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…t right to use the technical knowhow which can be revoked any time. Recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd vs. CIT, 412 ITR 436, after analyzing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs CIBA of India Ltd, 69 ITR 692, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 124 ITR T and Alembic Chemical works ltd vs CIT, 177 ITR 377 had held that license is only mere right to use the technical knowhow or trade mark. From the perusal of the license agreement, it is clear that appellant is conferred only right to use technical knowhow. The ownership always lies with licensor and the asses…

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OF ERSTWHILE ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration are allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. In the case of CIT v. Ciba of India. Ltd. 69 ITR 692, the assessee had acquired under the agreement merely the right to draw for the purpose of carrying on its business as a manufacturer and dealer of pharmaceutical products, upon the technical knowledge of the Swiss company for a limited period and since the Swiss company did not part with any asset of its business ITA Nos.748, 733/Bang/2011 Page…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S THE VYSYA BANK LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration are allowed

ITA 733/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. In the case of CIT v. Ciba of India. Ltd. 69 ITR 692, the assessee had acquired under the agreement merely the right to draw for the purpose of carrying on its business as a manufacturer and dealer of pharmaceutical products, upon the technical knowledge of the Swiss company for a limited period and since the Swiss company did not part with any asset of its business ITA Nos.748, 733/Bang/2011 Page…

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…een held that where payment is made to simply use the technical know-how/knowledge provided by the foreign collaborator as opposed to acquisition of ownership rights therein, the payment made would be regarded as revenue expenditure.  CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.: 69 ITR 692 (SC)  CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 (SC)  Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC)  Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746 (Del HC)  Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT : 136 ITR 340 (Del)  Addl. CIT vs. Shama Engine Valves Ltd. : 138 ITR 217 (Del)  CIT vs. Bhai Sunder Dass& Sons P.…

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…made to simply use the technical know- how/knowledge provided by the foreign collaborator as opposed to Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT acquisition of ownership rights therein, the payment made would be regarded as revenue expenditure: • CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.: 69 ITR 692 (SC) • CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 (SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746 (Del HC) • Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT : 136 ITR 340 (Del) • Addl. CIT vs. Shama Engine Valves Ltd. : 138 ITR 217 (Del) • CIT vs. Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons P.…

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)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.101 OF 2016 BETWEEN: M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS TATA HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY CO. PVT. LTD) 45, JUBILEE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD BANGALORE-560025 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. SANDEEP SINGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI. JOGINDER SINGH JOGI. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-12…

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

CIT v. Ciba India Ltd. (69 ITR 692) — Cited in 65 Judgments | BharatTax