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.

65

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 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.

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Vrv Breweries & Botteling

ITA/594/2005HC Delhi19 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Rashmi Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha & Mr Somnath Shukla

…to SWCL were unreasonable and hence, hit by the provisions of section 40A(2) of the IT Act. 10. In so far as the first aspect was concerned, the CIT (A) on applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ciba of India Limited (1968) 69 ITR 692 SC came to the conclusion, after interpreting various clauses of the agreement, which interalia included, the termination clause, and clause 9 which, required the assessee to maintain strict confidence in respect of communication, correspondence, records and information, knowledge and documents falling within its domain – that at no stage did…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S V.R.V. Breweries & Botteli

ITA/559/2006HC Delhi19 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Rashmi Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha & Mr Somnath Shukla

…to SWCL were unreasonable and hence, hit by the provisions of section 40A(2) of the IT Act. 10. In so far as the first aspect was concerned, the CIT (A) on applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ciba of India Limited (1968) 69 ITR 692 SC came to the conclusion, after interpreting various clauses of the agreement, which interalia included, the termination clause, and clause 9 which, required the assessee to maintain strict confidence in respect of communication, correspondence, records and information, knowledge and documents falling within its domain – that at no stage did…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Munjal Showa Ltd

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to

ITA/85/2009HC Delhi06 Sept 2010
Section 143(3)

…Court, after referring to the decisions in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 124 2010:DHC:4349-DB ITR 1, CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. P. Ltd., [1980] 123 ITR 538, Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd., [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC), CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1), [1977] 110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works, [1976] 102 ITR 187 (Mad), and Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 121 ITR 510 (Cal), held thus: “It would thus appear that the courts have applied different tests like starting of a new business on the basis of technical know-how rece…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Munjal Showa Ltd

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to

ITA/86/2009HC Delhi06 Sept 2010
Section 143(3)

…Court, after referring to the decisions in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 124 2010:DHC:4347-DB ITR 1, CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. P. Ltd., [1980] 123 ITR 538, Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd., [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC), CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1), [1977] 110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works, [1976] 102 ITR 187 (Mad), and Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 121 ITR 510 (Cal), held thus: “It would thus appear that the courts have applied different tests like starting of a new business on the basis of technical know-how rece…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s DCM Technologies Limited

ITA/861/2010HC Delhi15 Jul 2010
Section 260A

…, it was held that in respect of whether a particular outlay is capital or revenue, the „once for all‟ test as well as the test of „enduring benefit‟ may not be conclusive. Their Lordships also referred to the decisions in CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC); CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1) (1977) 110 ITR 338 (Mad); CIT v. Sarada Binding Works (1976) 102 ITR 187 (Mad.); Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 510 (Cal); CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 538 (Bom.); Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and Alembic Chemical Works…