CIT v. G4S Securities System (India) P. Ltd.

COPERION IDEAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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.

…ce 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 other party and did not even bear the signatures of the witnesses. Then, refere…

HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Vs Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Circle-2, 3Rd Floor, Infinity Towers, Dlf Cyber City, Vanijya Nikunj, Gurgaon. Hsiidc Building, Udyog Vihar, Ph. V, Pan: Aabcm2359J Near Shankar Chowk, Nh-8, Gurgaon. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St February, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-1, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Of Appeal No. 1 & 1.1 Raised By The Read As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law, In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Ao, Amounting To Inr 87,12,690/-, On Account Of Additional Depreciation Claimed By The Appellant On New Plant & Machinery In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 32(I)(Iia) Of The Act. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) / Ld. Ao Erred On Facts & In Law, In Considering Only The Nomenclature Of The Assets To Hold The Disallowance, Without Appreciating The Detailed Nature & Use Of The Assets.”

…ellectual property rights in know-how remained with the foreign company, 11 payment in question was to be allowed as business expenditure. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs G4S Securities System (India) P. Ltd., 338 ITR 46 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the royalty paid by the assessee to foreign company for use of technical know-how on year to year basis would be allowable as revenue expenditure. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. UPCOM Cables Ltd., reported in…

JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVAQNCE SURFACTANTS INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2012-13 Jcit(Osd), Circle 1(2), Vs Advance Surfactants India Ltd., New Delhi. 511/2/1, Rajokari, New Delhi. Pan: Aabca9042Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2019 Order

…t royalty paid by the assessee to Chemtech was on the basis of production. For this purpose learned CIT(A) made a reference to Article 7.5 of the agreement. He applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs G4S Securities System, 338 ITR 46, CIT vs J.K. 3 Synthetics, 176 (2009) Taxman 355 (Del), Climate Systems India Ltd. vs CIT (2009) 319 ITR 113 (Del); and CIT vs EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 and reached a conclusion that where the payment of royalty depended on the quantum of sale which would decrease or increase every year depending upon the decrease or increase in the…

M/S XEROX INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

…calculating per piece of the said goods produced. Therefore/ the Tribunal rightly held that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.” c. Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v. G4S Securities System (India) P. Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 46 (Delhi), wherein it was held that: - ''Held that the ownership rights of the trade mark and know-how throughout vested with 'G' and on the expiration or termination of the agreement, the assessee was to return all know-how obtained by it under the agreement. The payment of royalty was also to be on year to year basis on the net sales of the assess…

M/S XEROX INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

…calculating per piece of the said goods produced. Therefore/ the Tribunal rightly held that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.” c. Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v. G4S Securities System (India) P. Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 46 (Delhi), wherein it was held that: - ''Held that the ownership rights of the trade mark and know-how throughout vested with 'G' and on the expiration or termination of the agreement, the assessee was to return all know-how obtained by it under the agreement. The payment of royalty was also to be on year to year basis on the net sales of the assess…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. XEROX INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

…calculating per piece of the said goods produced. Therefore/ the Tribunal rightly held that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.” c. Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT v. G4S Securities System (India) P. Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 46 (Delhi), wherein it was held that: - ''Held that the ownership rights of the trade mark and know-how throughout vested with 'G' and on the expiration or termination of the agreement, the assessee was to return all know-how obtained by it under the agreement. The payment of royalty was also to be on year to year basis on the net sales of the assess…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODI APOLLO INTERNATIONAL GROUP PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: : Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena Pillai

…held that royalty paid on a running basis, as percentage of revenues is a revenue expenditure: • CIT vs. Sharda Motor Industries Ltd: 319 ITR 109 (Del.) • Climate Systems India Ltd, vs. CIT : 319 ITR 113 (Del.) • G4S Securities System India (P) Ltd. v. CIT : 338 ITR 46 (Del.) • CIT v. Lumax Industries Limited: 173 Taxman 390 (Del.) • CIT v J.K. Synthetics Ltd: 309 ITR 371 (Del.) - SLP dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2009 in S.L.P.(C) No.17346 of 2009 • CIT v. Ciba India Ltd: 69 ITR 692 (SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. CIT: 177 ITR 377 • CIT v Shriram Pistons and Rings Limited -CC 12154/2009 (Supreme…

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…T – Order dated 23.11.2012 of ITAT in ITA No.5130/Del/2010. (iv) CIT Vs. Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd. – [2009] 319 ITR 109 (Delhi). (v) Climate Systems India Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2009] 319 ITR 113 (Delhi). (vi) CIT Vs. G4S Securities System (India) P.Ltd. – [2011] 338 ITR 46 (Delhi). (vii) Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi-I – 127 ITR 746. (viii) Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2008] 171 Taxman 81 (Delhi). (ix) Praga Tools Ltd. Vs. CIT – [1980] 123 ITR 773 (AP). (x) CIT Vs. Avery India Ltd. – [1994] 207 ITR 813 (Calcutta). (xi) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT – [2015] 60 taxmann.com 41…

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…T – Order dated 23.11.2012 of ITAT in ITA No.5130/Del/2010. (iv) CIT Vs. Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd. – [2009] 319 ITR 109 (Delhi). (v) Climate Systems India Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2009] 319 ITR 113 (Delhi). (vi) CIT Vs. G4S Securities System (India) P.Ltd. – [2011] 338 ITR 46 (Delhi). (vii) Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi-I – 127 ITR 746. (viii) Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2008] 171 Taxman 81 (Delhi). (ix) Praga Tools Ltd. Vs. CIT – [1980] 123 ITR 773 (AP). (x) CIT Vs. Avery India Ltd. – [1994] 207 ITR 813 (Calcutta). (xi) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT – [2015] 60 taxmann.com 41…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GE CAPITAL BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

…ia Enterprises, 346 ITR 341 (Del.) (v). CIT vs. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd., 232 ITR 316 (SC) (vi). DCIT vs. Eicher Motors Ltd., 53 Taxman 317 (Delhi Tri.) (vii). CIT vs. Modi Revlon (P) Ltd., 26 Taxman.com 133 (Del.) (viii). CIT vs. G4S Securities System (India) Ltd., 338 ITR 46 (Del) He also contended that the learned CIT(A) in the subsequent assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 has decided the issue on the basis of same end-user nature. The decisions cited by the Assessing Officer are not applicable being based on different set of facts. He, therefore, urged for allowance of appeal. 6. The learned DR, on the o…

CIT vs. EKL APPLIANCES LTD

…ent decision in the Commissioner of Income Tax versus I.A.E.C. (Pumps) Limited, (1998) 232 ITR 316 (SC). Referring to these decisions, a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus G4S. Securities System (India) (P) Limited, (2011) 338 ITR 46, has held as under:- “9. From the terms of the agreement it is noticed that this arrangement was for a period of 5 years, which may be extended by another period of 5 years unless either party gives 6 months notice to the other party prior to the end of such 5 years period. The 2012:DHC:1214-DB ITA No. 1069/2011…

ITA 1069/2011 vs. EKL APPLIANCES LTD.

…ent decision in the Commissioner of Income Tax versus I.A.E.C. (Pumps) Limited, (1998) 232 ITR 316 (SC). Referring to these decisions, a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus G4S. Securities System (India) (P) Limited, (2011) 338 ITR 46, has held as under:- “9. From the terms of the agreement it is noticed that this arrangement was for a period of 5 years, which may be extended by another period of 5 years unless either party gives 6 months notice to the other party prior to the end of such 5 years period. The 2012:DHC:1214-DB ITA No. 1069/2011…