How many judgments cite CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.?

65 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ciba India Ltd. (69 ITR 692), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ciba India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 270A, Section 9(1)(vi)(c), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.

69 ITR 692Supreme Court of India1968#1740 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 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 115A Section 234B Section 234C Section 270A Section 9(1)(vi)(c)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Issues it is cited on

section 9(l)(vi)copyrighted article weighted deduction section 35(2ab)royalty income csr expenditure computer software business connection section 9(1)(vi)enduring benefit section 10(34)business expediency

Judgments citing CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.

Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Del/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Coperion Ideal Pvt.Ltd., 402, Hemkunth Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. ……..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccc3990N Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…nsfer Pricing Officer (in short “TPO”) in the TP proceedings, to whom reference was made, made no adjustment. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) CIT vs Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. (245 ITR 492) (Delhi High Court) (b) CIT vs Ciba of India Ltd. (69 ITR 692) (Supreme Court) (c) CIT vs G4S Securities System India (P) Ltd., (338 ITR 46) (Delhi High Court) 7. The Ld. DR for the Revenue on the other hand stressed that the agreement filed by the assessee was not genuine. It was pointed out that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not have the copy of the agreement which was signed by the o…

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Honda Cars India Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed, as far as Ground No

ITA 3229/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Amit Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…ITA No.-3229/Del/2014 M/s Honda Cars India Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3229/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner of M/s Honda Cars India Ltd., Income Tax (LTU), Vs. Plot No. A-1, Sector-40/41, Delhi. Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida. PAN No: AAACH1765Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT(DR) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Amit Srivastava, Adv. ORDER Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Revenue is fil…

Eli Lilly and Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circel-1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7487/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Kumar Karan, CIT-DR

Section 32

…vested in OLL and the assessee has not been authorized to transfer, assign or convey such knowhow/technical information etc. to any third party. He placed reliance on many decisions including the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex court in CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.: 69 ITR 692 (SC);Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC);CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd.: 165 ITR 51 (SC);CIT v. Indian Oxygen Ltd.: 218 ITR 337 (SC);CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd: 232 ITR 316 (SC) ;CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd. 236 ITR 314 (SC) and CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 (SC)and also, the recent decision of the Hon’ble jur…

Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 7230/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 234Section 234CSection 271Section 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 ITR227. 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…

D.C.I.T. - 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ppg Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6548/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6548/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Dharam Veer SinghFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri

Section 36Section 37(1)

…and the same has not been transferred to the assessee. Thus, in this way, the transaction did not result in acquisition of any capital asset or a benefit of enduring nature. The decision relied upon by Ld. AR in the case of CIT Vrs. Ciba of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as under the agreement, the assessee did not become entitle exclusively, even for the period of agreement, to the patents and trademarks of the licensor, it had merely assessed to the technical knowledge and experience, which the licensor commanded and was a mere licence for a limited pe…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…eld 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. • As CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.: 69 ITR 692 (SC) • CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (S.C) • Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT: 127 ITR 746 (Del H.C) • Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. CIT(A): 136 ITR 340 (Del) • Addl. CIT vs. Shama Engine Valves Ltd, : 138 ITR 217 (Del) • CIT vs. Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons P…

Stellar Chemical Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2014/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Stellar Chemical Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-5(3), Aayakarbhavan, 501, Arun Chambers, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400034. Pan No. Aaccs0823J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)

…levant materials on record. A perusal of the records clearly indicates that the expenditure of Rs.16,51,786/- incurred by the assessee is operational in nature and solely intended for the furtherance of the enterprise. In the case of CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. 69 ITR 692, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled payments made for the right to have access to the technical knowledge and the fruits of continued research and experience of a foreign company and to use its patents and trademarks are on the revenue account. Also in CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the amount paid by the assesse…

Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 7231/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Vs. Dcit, S.R. Batliboi & Co., Circle 3(1)(1), Oval Office, 18, Ilabs Centre, International Taxation, Hitech City, Madhapur, New Delhi. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacq3149D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G.K. Dhall, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-23, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Qualcomm Technologies Inc. (Qti) Is A Company Incorporated In The United States Of America & Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa (‘Qualcomm’). Pursuant To A Corporate Restructuring With Effect From 1St October, 2012, Substantially All The Principal Business Units Of Qualcomm (I.E., Qualcomm Cdma Technologies (‘Qct’)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Vs. DCIT, S.R. Batliboi & Co., Circle 3(1)(1), Oval Office, 18, iLabs Centre, International Taxation, Hitech City, Madhapur, New Delhi. Hyderabad. PAN: AAACQ3149D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 07.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 12.02.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

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

…following cases, consistently held that payment made for obtaining access to information and restricted license to the limited use of know-how, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • CIT v. Ciba India Ltd: 69 ITR 692 (SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) CIT v. Shriram Pistons and Rings Limited -CC 12154/2009 (SC) • (dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue against the order of the Delhi High Court in ITA No. 167/2008) • Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746(Del) • Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 136: ITR 340…

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1099/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Huntsman International (India) Acit 10(1)(1), Private Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Light Hall B-Wing, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das

Section 143(3)

…nd for only a short period, that benefit accruing to the assessee from such payment for use of brand was transit in nature, that the assessee did not derive any enduring benefit or any permanent advantage. The assessee referred to the case of CIBA-India Ltd.(69 ITR 692), IAEC Pumps Ltd.(232 ITR 316).Without prejudice to the above, it was contended that if the payments made for brand use was treated as capital asset then depreciation@25% as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii)of the Act should be allowed. With regard to MSC, it was stated that on acquisition of textile effect business the manufacturing facili…

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. H- One India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3889/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)

…should be regarded as expenditure incurred for the purpose of running the business during the period of the agreement. The payment would, therefore, be revenue in nature. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CTT v. Ciba of India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692 provides clear guidance in cases of this type. ” The first step, therefore, in dealing with foreign collaboration agreements is to analyse the terms of the agreement and ascertain the facts relating to the working or implementation of the agreement in order to find out, what rights or benefits or property have been acquired under the agreement by…

Bellsonica Auto Components India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2210/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: “ 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT

Section 195Section 32(1)Section 40

…nue expenses. Assessee contends that expenditure incurred on acquisition of right to know-how/technical information would not satisfy test of enduring benefit. Assessee placed reliance upon decision le Supreme Court in the case of CITv. Ciba India Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 692. 9.6. Whereas Department contends that right acquired by assessee enabled assessee in trading results in practical and commercial sense and therefore satisfies test for enduring benefits. ITA Nos. 2210 & 2329/Del./2016 19 9.7. Certain facts as observed by Ld.CIT (A) are that know-how are owned by owners and assessee was granted right to use for…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3613/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…oyalty paid for the use of technical knowhow and IPRS in the given circumstances be held as a capital expenditure as has been held by the AO or revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee. 16.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Ciba of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC) considered a situation in which that assessee was enabled to acquire the right to draw for the purpose of carrying on its business as a manufacturer and dealer of permissible products upon the technical knowledge available from the foreign company for a limited period with stipulation not to divulge the information to third parties and furthe…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3612/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…been 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. Ltd. : 158…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…en 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 91 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. Ltd. : 158…

M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

The appeal is disposed of, affirming the decision of the Tribunal on the

ITA/676/2005HC Delhi15 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 37

…usiness can also be extended and expanded by making additional capital investment. 15. This is not a case of upgradation of existing and in use "technical" know-how as was the position in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Ciba of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC). In the said case, the license, which was for a limited period, had given access to the assessee to better technical know-how in running operations. The assessee had not acquired ownership rights in the technical know-how and thus, acquisition ITA 676/2005 Page 7 of 8 of a fresh asset or advantage of enduring nat…

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1307/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…he Agreement are exclusive to it. The annual payment is a business necessity and without payment of the same there would be no right to operate/participate in that year. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial precedents:  CIT Vs. Ciba of India Ltd 69 ITR 692 (SC) Where the assessee did not become entitled under the agreement exclusively, even for the period of the agreement, to the patents and trademarks of the company but had mere access to the technical knowledge/experience which the foreign company commanded, the payment to foreign company were deductible. In this case, the Supreme Court has consid…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…resaid Circular, the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of CIT v Lumax Industries Limited: 173 Taxman 390 held that similar royalty payment was allowable as revenue deduction. 9.4. He submitted that in a host of decisions, namely, CIT v. Ciba India Ltd: 69 ITR 692 (SC) , Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC), CIT v. Shriram Pistons and Rings Limited -CC 12154/2009 (SC) (dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue against the order of the Delhi High Court in ITA No. 167/2008), Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746(Del), Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 136: ITR 340 (De…

Honda Siel Cars India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the results. As a consequence, we find no

C.A. No.-004918-004918 - 2017Supreme Court09 Jun 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 148

…eld that what was conferred was a mere right to use. The Indian assessee, it was observed, was not entitled to exclusive rights to patents, trademarks etc. As per the agreement, proprietary information was not to be divulged to third parties 4 (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC) Civil Appeal No. 4918 of 2017 & Ors. Page 21 of 34 without consent. The rights granted enabled access to the technical knowledge and experience with right to use patents and trademarks for a limited period. The Swiss Company did not part with any asset of its business, nor did the Indian assessee acquire any asset or advan…