What is CIT v. Havells India Ltd. authority for?

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Havells India Ltd.?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Havells India Ltd. (352 ITR 376), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Havells India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 9(1)(vii), Section 234B, Section 9(1)(vii)(b), Section 144C(13), Section 10AA.

CIT v. Havells India Ltd. (352 ITR 376)

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 5202/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…the above said order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Security Meters (supra) which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11/08/2009 in SLP No. 10548/2009. 33.2 Further in the case of CIT Vs. Havells India Ltd. 352 ITR 376 (Del) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: “25. The Revenue is in appeal. The main contention on its behalf is that the position should be seen not only with reference to time at which the debentures are issued but the fact that at a future point of time they were to be converted in shares should also be taken note of in orde…

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 4796/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

…the above said order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Security Meters (supra) which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11/08/2009 in SLP No. 10548/2009. 33.2 Further in the case of CIT Vs. Havells India Ltd. 352 ITR 376 (Del) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: “25. The Revenue is in appeal. The main contention on its behalf is that the position should be seen not only with reference to time at which the debentures are issued but the fact that at a future point of time they were to be converted in shares should also be taken note of in orde…

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 810/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 40

…chargeable to tax in India, then the question of deduction of tax at source by the payer would not arise. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Havells India Limited reported in [2013] 352 ITR 376 (Delhi). In such case, however, the court was of the opinion that the payment made by the assessee to a US based company for certification facilitating export was not in relation to the source of income which was based in India. The facts were thus different. It was also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a decision in the case…

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM The Dy. Commissioner of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, MIDC, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACK2238F Assessee by : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, AR Revenue by : Shri C T Mathew, DR Date of hearing: 17.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by Sulzer Pumps Indi…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, (Intl.Taxa)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 711/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 250

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Cadila Healthcare Ltd., DCIT (Intl.Taxn.)-1, 8th Floor, Zydus Tower, Ahmedabad Satellite Cross Road, Vs (Respondent) Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACC6253G (Appellant) Assessment Year 2013-14 ACIT (Intl.Taxn.)-1, Cadila Healthcare Ahmedabad Ltd., 8th Floor, Zydus (Appellant) Vs Tower, Satellite Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACC6253G (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. & Shri Jigar Patel, A.R. Revenue…

ACIT, (Int. Taxa)-1, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1140/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 250

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Cadila Healthcare Ltd., DCIT (Intl.Taxn.)-1, 8th Floor, Zydus Tower, Ahmedabad Satellite Cross Road, Vs (Respondent) Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACC6253G (Appellant) Assessment Year 2013-14 ACIT (Intl.Taxn.)-1, Cadila Healthcare Ahmedabad Ltd., 8th Floor, Zydus (Appellant) Vs Tower, Satellite Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAACC6253G (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. & Shri Jigar Patel, A.R. Revenue…

Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2212/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…subsequently convertible into shares. In view of the aforesaid principle, provisions of section 56(2)(viib) cannot be applied in the year under consideration of issue of debentures. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:  CIT Vs. Havells India Ltd. (352 ITR 376) (Delhi)  CIT Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. (321 ITR 611) (Raj.)  Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Natural Resource Ltd. (111 taxmann.com 413) (Born.) 2.2.2. The legislature has consciously used the term "shares" in the section as opposed to "securities". Debentures although convertible, are "securities" as defined in Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Apollo Tyres Ltd

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

…vour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. The substantial questions deal with the amount expended by the assessee towards preoperative expenses for establishing a plant, whether would constitute capital 3 (2009) 311 ITR 405 (Delhi) 4 (2013) 352 ITR 376 (Delhi) 5 (2007) 293 ITR 231 (Delhi) 6 (2008) 298 ITR 194 SC ITA No.44/2017 -11- expenditure or revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 37 of the Act enables deduction of any expenditure which is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 2288/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Paramount Dy. Commissioner of Income Communications Ltd. Tax, C-125, Paramount House, Circle-14(1), Naraina INdl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110028 PAN-AAACP0969Q Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Paramount Dy. Commissioner of Income Communications Ltd. Tax, C-125, Paramount House, Circle-14(1), Naraina INdl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110028 PAN-AAACP0969Q Assessee Revenue [A…

Paramount Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 1378/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Paramount Dy. Commissioner of Income Communications Ltd. Tax, C-125, Paramount House, Circle-14(1), Naraina INdl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110028 PAN-AAACP0969Q Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Paramount Dy. Commissioner of Income Communications Ltd. Tax, C-125, Paramount House, Circle-14(1), Naraina INdl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110028 PAN-AAACP0969Q Assessee Revenue [A…

M/S. Paramount Communictions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 767/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Paramount Dy. Commissioner of Income Communications Ltd. Tax, C-125, Paramount House, Circle-14(1), Naraina INdl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110028 PAN-AAACP0969Q Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Paramount Dy. Commissioner of Income Communications Ltd. Tax, C-125, Paramount House, Circle-14(1), Naraina INdl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110028 PAN-AAACP0969Q Assessee Revenue [A…

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

…ric testing and CB Testing); the same, therefore, do not, constitute technical service warranting deduction of tax at source.‖ 74. For assessment year 2005 – 06 in assessee‘s own case the issue was before the honourable Delhi High Court in 21 taxmann.com 476 (352 ITR 376). In para number nine of such order the honourable High Court in the first line itself has held that ―It appears to us on reading of the orders of the departmental authorities and the order of the tribunal that there is no dispute that the amount paid by the assessee to the US company represented ―fees for technical services ―within the meaning o…

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

…ric testing and CB Testing); the same, therefore, do not, constitute technical service warranting deduction of tax at source.‖ 74. For assessment year 2005 – 06 in assessee‘s own case the issue was before the honourable Delhi High Court in 21 taxmann.com 476 (352 ITR 376). In para number nine of such order the honourable High Court in the first line itself has held that ―It appears to us on reading of the orders of the departmental authorities and the order of the tribunal that there is no dispute that the amount paid by the assessee to the US company represented ―fees for technical services ―within the meaning o…

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

…ric testing and CB Testing); the same, therefore, do not, constitute technical service warranting deduction of tax at source.‖ 74. For assessment year 2005 – 06 in assessee‘s own case the issue was before the honourable Delhi High Court in 21 taxmann.com 476 (352 ITR 376). In para number nine of such order the honourable High Court in the first line itself has held that ―It appears to us on reading of the orders of the departmental authorities and the order of the tribunal that there is no dispute that the amount paid by the assessee to the US company represented ―fees for technical services ―within the meaning o…

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3865/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…come into play in the case. The issue for consideration is the meaning of the expression ‘such person’ appearing in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. In this context reference is made to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Havels India Ltd. 352 ITR 376 wherein Hon’ble High Court held that in order to fall within the exception provided in section 9(1)(vii)(v) of the Act, the source of income, and not the receipt, should be situated outside India. Regarding the exception of section 9(1)(vii)(b), the Court held that in order to get the benefit of first exception it is necessary for the taxpayer (r…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…t that it was the case of the assessee that this office is being set up for increasing exports of the company to newer countries. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Havells India Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 376 (Delhi) wherein the term “new source of income” has been explained and that increase in exports does not fall within the exceptions to Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 6. Thus, he submitted that the amount paid to Mr. Firpo consequently falls within the definition of fees for technical services. He further submitted that the payment in question i…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…i) " CIT Vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd. : 293 ITR 459 (Delhi) " Indo rama Synthetics (I) Ltd.Vs. CIT: 228 CTR 278 (Delhi) " Jay Engineering works ltd. Vs. CIT: 311 ITR 405 (Delhi) " CIT Vs. Monnet Industries Ltd. : 221 CTR 266 (Delhi) " CIT Vs. havells India Limited: 352 ITR 376 (Delhi) 137. It is thus settled position that expenditure incurred for the purpose of expansion/extension of the existing business is allowable revenue expenditure. 138. In the present case, as stated above, expenses were, it is reiterated, incurred merely to explore possibility of raw material from mines located at Bolivia, which were required…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1617/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…res-integra and stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of various High Courts (including the jurisdictional Delhi High Court) and Tribunals. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Havells India Limited 352 ITR 376 had held that expenditure incurred on issue of debentures is to be allowed as revenue expenditure despite indications to effect that debentures are to be converted in near future into equity shares. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Secure Meters Limited: 321 ITR 611 (Rajasthan High Court) - SLP dismissed in CC No.10548/ 2…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2395/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…res-integra and stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of various High Courts (including the jurisdictional Delhi High Court) and Tribunals. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Havells India Limited 352 ITR 376 had held that expenditure incurred on issue of debentures is to be allowed as revenue expenditure despite indications to effect that debentures are to be converted in near future into equity shares. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Secure Meters Limited: 321 ITR 611 (Rajasthan High Court) - SLP dismissed in CC No.10548/ 2…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…res-integra and stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of various High Courts (including the jurisdictional Delhi High Court) and Tribunals. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Havells India Limited 352 ITR 376 had held that expenditure incurred on issue of debentures is to be allowed as revenue expenditure despite indications to effect that debentures are to be converted in near future into equity shares. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Secure Meters Limited: 321 ITR 611 (Rajasthan High Court) - SLP dismissed in CC No.10548/ 2…

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.

What is CIT v. Havells India Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Havells India Ltd.

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, (Intl.Taxa)-1, Ahmedabad

ACIT, (Int. Taxa)-1, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad

Arm Infra & Utilities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Range-6, Mumbai

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Apollo Tyres Ltd

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Paramount Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Paramount Communictions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

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

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

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward, Kolkata

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi