CIT v. Eicher Ltd.

294 ITR 310High Court2007#567 most cited

What is CIT v. Eicher Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous for want of an inquiry, thus restricting revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer applied their mind to the issue and had all relevant facts before them. Additionally, disallowed expenditures are not to be included as part of an asset's cost for tax purposes.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Eicher Ltd. · 294 ITR 310 · Delhi High Court · Section 263 · revisionary power · PCIT jurisdiction · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · AO application of mind · lack of inquiry · disallowed expenditure · asset cost · Section 40A(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 144CSection 263Section 144BSection 148Section 11Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundrelinquishment of rightsection 40a(9)test of enduring benefitsection 211section 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feeslump sale

Judgments citing CIT v. Eicher Ltd.

ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur, Ward-7(2) vs. M/S. Silvex & Company G-1/35 to 37, 47, 48 Epip, Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 845/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…the return filed by the assessee, taking resort to Section 147/148 was unwarranted as it constituted a change of opinion, since the material acted upon had been made available along with return of income. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del) The High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Office…

M/S. Silvex & Company India Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-7(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 834/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…the return filed by the assessee, taking resort to Section 147/148 was unwarranted as it constituted a change of opinion, since the material acted upon had been made available along with return of income. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del) The High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Office…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…ndustrial Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (S.C.); (vii) CIT Vs, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192(Del.); (viii) CIT Vs. International Travel House Ltd., 194 Taxman 324; (ix) CIT Vs. DLF Power Ltd., 329 ITR 289(Del.); (x) CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (De!.); (xi) CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); (xii) CIT Vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del); (xiii)CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582(Bom.); (xiv) CIT Vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd, 236 CTR 1 (Delhi)”. 9. Per contra, ld. D.R. vehemently argued supporting the detailed finding of the ld. PCIT and the decisions relied therein. It is…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Abir Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2068/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…a change of opinion and a new approach to the existing facts and material which the Assessing Officer could well have done during the regular assessment proceedings of the relevant assessment years. (5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Offic…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…a change of opinion and a new approach to the existing facts and material which the Assessing Officer could well have done during the regular assessment proceedings of the relevant assessment years. (5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Offic…

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 192/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthamFor Respondent: Smt. Amisha S. Gupt
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…a change of opinion and a new approach to the existing facts and material which the Assessing Officer could well have done during the regular assessment proceedings of the relevant assessment years. (5) In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Limited, (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), the High Court has taken a view that since the facts and materials were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his successor on the same facts, it clearly amounted to a change of opinion, which would not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Offic…

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250

…”. The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. [(2008) 302 ITR 249] vs. Eicher Ltd. [(2008) 302 ITR 249]. In the said case, the assessee (engaged in the . In the said case, the assessee (engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing t business of manufacturing and marketing two wheelers) entered into a non wo wheelers) entered into a non-compete agreement with a third party which restrained the said thi…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…llowing decisions, wherein while reconciling and following the aforementioned decisions of the apex Court, the Courts have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, held non-compete payments to be revenue expenditure. vii. In the case of CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 302 ITR 249 (Del), a full time employee of the assessee called Vishwanathan had acquired, during the course of his employment, specialized knowledge of technology in the two-wheeler industry as well as of managing the dealership of the market place and other specialized knowledge relating to the two- wheeler business. Vishwanathan entered into an agreement w…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…llowing decisions, wherein while reconciling and following the aforementioned decisions of the apex Court, the Courts have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, held non-compete payments to be revenue expenditure. vii. In the case of CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 302 ITR 249 (Del), a full time employee of the assessee called Vishwanathan had acquired, during the course of his employment, specialized knowledge of technology in the two-wheeler industry as well as of managing the dealership of the market place and other specialized knowledge relating to the two- wheeler business. Vishwanathan entered into an agreement w…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…llowing decisions, wherein while reconciling and following the aforementioned decisions of the apex Court, the Courts have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, held non-compete payments to be revenue expenditure. vii. In the case of CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 302 ITR 249 (Del), a full time employee of the assessee called Vishwanathan had acquired, during the course of his employment, specialized knowledge of technology in the two-wheeler industry as well as of managing the dealership of the market place and other specialized knowledge relating to the two- wheeler business. Vishwanathan entered into an agreement w…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…dia Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) 3. Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd, 220 ITR 194 (Gujrat) document1 4. Jindal Photofilms Ltd. 234 ITR 170 (Delhi) 5. Berger Paints India Ltd. 245 ITR 645(Cal) and Mercury Travels Ltd, 258 ITR 533(Cal) 6. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del) 7. Voltas Limited. 349 ITR 656 (Bom) 8. Manjusha Estate (P) Ltd, 314 ITR 236(Guj) 9. Jal Hotels Co. Ltd, 184 Taxman 1 (Del) 10. Feather Foam Ent.(P) Ltd, 296 ITR 342(Del) 11. Goetze Ltd. 321 ITR 431 (Del) 12. Satnam Overseas 228 CTR 121 (Del) 13. IL& FS Investment Managers Ltd. 298 ITR 32 (Bom) 14. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, 325 ITR 4…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2963/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2962/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2961/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2960/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2958/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2957/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2810/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2809/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2808/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…re Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (S.C.)) and [1989] 177 ITR 377 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.), learned counsel further made reference to [1999] 239 ITR 142 (Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income- Tax) and [2008] 302 ITR 249 (CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. (Delhi)) to submit that the agreement entered into between the assessee company with U.Mohanrao would clearly show that the expenditure was only on the revenue account. 12. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the de…