CIT v. Hitech Arai Ltd.

368 ITR 577High Court#15714 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Hitech Arai Ltd.

JCIT (OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Iss Sdb Security Services Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.610/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Iss Db Security Services Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Bascon Futura Sv, 10/1, Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1(1), Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaact3628C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahir Chitalia, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 11.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 34 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which; The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri Mahir Chitalia, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…yment would be revenue in nature. This case law has distinguished the case law of Southern Switchgear V/s CIT (supra) as relied upon by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT V/s Hitech Arai Ltd. (368 ITR 577) wherein similar expenditure was held to be revenue expenditure. Similar was the ratio of decision in CIT V/s Panasonic Carbon India Co. Ltd. (TCA Nos.552 of 2010 &ors. Dated 12.07.2010). On the basis of all these decisions, it was held by Ld. CIT(A) that there was no transfer of any rights or assets. The assessee merely uses the benefits / licen…

Iss Sdb Security Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1687/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/ Shri M.P. Lohia (CA) &Nikil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…yment would be revenue in nature. This case law has distinguished the case law of Southern Switchgear V/s CIT (supra) as relied upon by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT V/s Hitech Arai Ltd. (368 ITR 577) wherein similar expenditure was held to be revenue expenditure. Similar was the ratio of decision in CIT V/s Panasonic Carbon India Co. Ltd. (TCA Nos.552 of 2010 &ors. Dated 12.07.2010). On the basis of all these decisions, it was held by Ld. CIT(A) that there was no transfer of any rights or assets. The assessee merely uses the benefits / licen…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai vs. Iss Sdb Security Services Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3536/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri MP Lohia (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…yment would be revenue in nature. This case law has distinguished the case law of Southern Switchgear V/s CIT (supra) as relied upon by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT V/s Hitech Arai Ltd. (368 ITR 577) wherein similar expenditure was held to be revenue expenditure. Similar was the ratio of decision in CIT V/s Panasonic Carbon India Co. Ltd. (TCA Nos.552 of 2010 &ors. Dated 12.07.2010). On the basis of all these decisions, it was held by Ld. CIT(A) that there was no transfer of any rights or assets. The assessee merely uses the benefits / licen…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Iss Sdb Security Services Pvt. Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2707/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri MP Lohia (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…yment would be revenue in nature. This case law has distinguished the case law of Southern Switchgear V/s CIT (supra) as relied upon by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT V/s Hitech Arai Ltd. (368 ITR 577) wherein similar expenditure was held to be revenue expenditure. Similar was the ratio of decision in CIT V/s Panasonic Carbon India Co. Ltd. (TCA Nos.552 of 2010 &ors. Dated 12.07.2010). On the basis of all these decisions, it was held by Ld. CIT(A) that there was no transfer of any rights or assets. The assessee merely uses the benefits / licen…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…2010] 327 ITR 26 (P&H) (ii) CIT vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 640 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Siva Springs, [2008] 304 ITR 24 (Mad.) (iv) CIT vs. Goel Builders, [2011] 331 ITR 344 (All.) (v) CIT' Vs. Hitech Arai Limited 368 ITR 577 (Mad) The relevant part of this judgment is reproduced below from page 587 of the Report: "We find no justifiable reason to differ with the said finding rendered by the Tribunal, more so taking note ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT of the fact that the Department had for the A…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…2010] 327 ITR 26 (P&H) (ii) CIT vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 640 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Siva Springs, [2008] 304 ITR 24 (Mad.) (iv) CIT vs. Goel Builders, [2011] 331 ITR 344 (All.) (v) CIT' Vs. Hitech Arai Limited 368 ITR 577 (Mad) The relevant part of this judgment is reproduced below from page 587 of the Report: "We find no justifiable reason to differ with the said finding rendered by the Tribunal, more so taking note ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT of the fact that the Department had for the A…

CIT v. Hitech Arai Ltd. (368 ITR 577) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax