CIT v. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd.

12 DTR 311High Court2008#10342 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2017.

Issues it is cited on

pptsection 115jsection 115jbsection 37section 115section 11prescribedcompanyindiabusinessnfac

Judgments citing CIT v. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd.

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

…nce created by the assessee during the year was an allowable expenditure. In addition, reliance is also placed on the following decisions: • CIT v. IBM India Ltd.[2015] 230 taxman 544 (Karnataka High Court) • Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 12 DTR 311 (Delhi High Court) The Appellant additionally submits that the facts in the decision relied upon by the AO i.e. Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC) is different from the facts of Ford India’s case and consequently cannot be applied in the instant case. On the other hand the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.…

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2344/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

…nce created by the assessee during the year was an allowable expenditure. In addition, reliance is also placed on the following decisions: • CIT v. IBM India Ltd.[2015] 230 taxman 544 (Karnataka High Court) • Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 12 DTR 311 (Delhi High Court) The Appellant additionally submits that the facts in the decision relied upon by the AO i.e. Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC) is different from the facts of Ford India’s case and consequently cannot be applied in the instant case. On the other hand the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/42/2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

Section 115J

…. The Court does not find any reasons*uo disturb the said findings. On this *ruunf too the revenue's claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/40/2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

Section 115J

…. The Court does not find any reasons*uo disturb the said findings. On this *ruunf too the revenue's claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/43/2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

Section 115J

…. The Court does not find any reasons*uo disturb the said findings. On this *ruunf too the revenue's claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA - 43 / 2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

Section 115J

…. The Court does not find any reasons*uo disturb the said findings. On this *ruunf too the revenue's claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA - 41 / 2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

Section 115J

…. The Court does not find any reasons*uo disturb the said findings. On this *ruunf too the revenue's claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA - 40 / 2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

Section 115J

…. The Court does not find any reasons*uo disturb the said findings. On this *ruunf too the revenue's claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA - 42 / 2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Waruanty As

Section 115J

…. The Court does not find any reasons*uo disturb the said findings. On this *ruunf too the revenue's claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgrnent of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hcttline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 1 1. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are ansrvered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT. J 1,il.",-1 , R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 19, 2OI2…

CIT vs. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD

ITA - 39 / 2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012

Bench: This Court I.E. Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Treating The Provision For Warranty As 2012:Dhc:6863-Db

Section 115J

…Court does not find any reasons to disturb the said findings. On this ground too the revenue‟s claim has to fail. 10. The view of the Tribunal also finds support in a judgment of this Court reported as CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR 311 where the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 391. 11. For the above reasons all questions of law sought to be urged are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals are therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J…