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

96 TTJ 211Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#3947 most cited

What is CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd. authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd · 96 TTJ 211 · ITAT · fresh claim · Tribunal power · revised computation · assessing officer · appeal proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(8)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 32

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 10b(8)section 153(a)section 153a(1)(a)section 10bsection 139(5)section 80acsection 80aincome escaping assessmentsection 158bsection 153a(1)section 158

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Wipro Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 2328/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1220/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1219/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1218/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1217/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1216/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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 Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1215/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…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…

Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 143(3)

…TR 62 (Ker.) - CCIT v. Senapathy Whitely Ltd. : 101 CTR 31 (Kar.) - CIT v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.: 175 ITR 212 (Kar.) Your Honour's kind attention is also invited to a recent decision of Banglore Bench of Tribunal in the case of Wipro Limited vs. DCIT : 96 TTJ 211, wherein in identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Tribunal held the loss on account of write off of stock pursuant to closure of part of the business as operational loss allowable revenue deduction. In that case before the Tribunal, the assessee-company, a distributor of computers and related products claimed deduction for the loss from the discon…

M/S Sasken Communication Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 397/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand KhinchaFor Respondent: Smt. Priscilla Singsit, CIT -DR I
Section 133(6)Section 92C

…assessee under Rule 13 of the Rules. It is pleaded that in the following decisions, it has been held that royalty income constitutes profits of the business of 10A units and consequently eligible for deduction under section 10A. (i) Wipro Ltd v DOT [2005] 96 TTJ 211 - 1TAT Bangalore (ii) CIT v Wipro Ltd - ITA 3204 of 2005 - Karnataka HC - 28.2.20 12 (iii) CIT v Wipro Ltd - TTA 507 of 2002— Karnataka HC - 25.8.20 10 (iv) CIT v Wipro Ltd - ITA 503 of 2002 - Karnataka HC - 1.9.20 10 (v) CIT v Motorola India Electronics P Ltd - Karnataka HC – 11.12.2013 And in the following decisions, it has been held that exp…

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…ement (Bharat) Ltd: 215 ITR 441 (Del.) • CIT v Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd.: 44 ITR 22 (Del.) • CIT vs. Bharat Commerce & Industries Limited : 240 ITR 256 (Del HC) • IAC v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd.: 14 ITD 564 (Bom.) • Wipro Limited vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211(Bang.) • Samsung Electronics India Ltd. vs. JCIT (ITA No.3200 & 2344/Del/2000 & ITA No.3734/Del/2002) [Del ITAT] Reliance, is also placed on the following decisions, wherein it has been held that the provision made by the assessee towards obsolete and slow moving items was allowable deduction: • CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.: 188 ITR 44 (SC) •…