CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.

ITA 5256/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2011-12

…le Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the very first time. 22. Further, the Delhi…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

ITA 5255/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2010-11

…le Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the very first time. 22. Further, the Del…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

ITA 5254/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2009-10

…le Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the very first time. 22. Further, the Del…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153A

…Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5ОТ 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the very first time. 22. Further, the…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5253/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

ITA 5252/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

…le Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the very first time. 22. Further, the Del…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

ITA 5251/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2006-07

…Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) b) c) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: Taxman 55 (Am) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 153 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the very first time. 22. Further, the Delhi…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

…le Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the very first time. 22. Further, the Del…

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…of PB-CL for AY 2004-05 -& 2005-06] - CIT v Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd.: 107 Taxman 135 (Delhi HC) [Pg. 43-45 of PB-CL for AY 2004-05 & 2005-06] - IAC v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd.: 14 1TD 564 (Bom. Tribunal) - Wipro Limited vs. DCIT : 96 TTJ 211 (Bangalore Tribunal). - Samsung India Electronics Limited (ITA No. 3734/Del/2002) (Delhi Tribunal) - Jet Airways India (P) Ltd. vs CIT (in 4228/M/2000 for assessment year 1997-98; 3349/M/2002 for assessment year!998-99; 2682/M/2003 for assessment year 1999-2000; 5945/M/2003 for assessment year 2000-01; 7389/M/2004 for assessment year 2001-02; 4087…

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONSLTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

ITA 4041/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4041/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Acit-2(3) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. बिाम/ Room No.555 Bombay House Aaykar Bhavan 24, Homi Modi Street Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3664/Mum/2007 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Acit-2(3) बिाम/ Bombay House Room No.555 24, Homi Modi Street Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4060-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement Assessment Year 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80MSection 90

…ver of Sec.10A units since profits were reduced in the numerator. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. 254 ITR 769) as well as the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in Wipro Ltd. V/s DCIT (96 TTJ 211) where similar reduction was granted in numerator as well as denominator. Assessment Year 2003-04 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 13.13 of the impugned order, observed that Sec.10A, in this year, was a deduction provision as against exemption provision earlier. Therefore, while computing deduction u/s 80HHE, the entire profits of software business (in…

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 22/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 21/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 20/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 19/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 2339/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 2338/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 2337/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 2336/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

ITA 2335/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

…nds covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. year 2000-01. The Tribunal while disposing off the appeal for the asst.year 2000-01, followed he earlier order for the asst.years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which is reported in 96 TTJ 211., Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 18.6 The Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprise v DCIT 111 ITC, 112 had an occasion to consider as to whether the expenditure incurred on.software is revenue or capital. If the life of the computer software is shorter, say less than two years, then it is to be treated as revenue…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar