CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd.

232 ITR 316Supreme Court of India1998#2535 most cited

What is CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. authority for?

Royalty paid for the non-exclusive use of patents and designs under a limited-period license, where payment depends on production and no rights are transferred, is revenue expenditure. Such expenditure enables efficient business operation without creating an enduring capital advantage.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. · IAEC Pumps · section 37 · section 37(1) · royalty payment · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit test · license fees · use of patents and designs · allowability of expenditure

Issues it is cited on

section 35(2ab)csr expenditureweighted deductionsection 10(34)enduring benefitsection 32revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 92casection 14asection 37(1)section 37

Judgments citing CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…exclusive license only enables the business of the appellant to be carried on more efficiently and profitably, while leaving the fixed capital untouched. He further relied upon the decisions of CIT vs Ciba India Ltd. 69 ITR 692 (SC); CIT vs IAEC (pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (SC); Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. vs CIT 127 ITR 746 (Del.); Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs CIT 136 ITR 340 (Del.); CIT vs Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons (P.) Ltd. 158 ITR 195 (Del.); CIT vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 372 ITR 481 (Del.) apart from other case laws. Further submission was made that there was no enduring benefit in the capital fie…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…exclusive license only enables the business of the appellant to be carried on more efficiently and profitably, while leaving the fixed capital untouched. He further relied upon the decisions of CIT vs Ciba India Ltd. 69 ITR 692 (SC); CIT vs IAEC (pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (SC); Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. vs CIT 127 ITR 746 (Del.); Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs CIT 136 ITR 340 (Del.); CIT vs Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons (P.) Ltd. 158 ITR 195 (Del.); CIT vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 372 ITR 481 (Del.) apart from other case laws. Further submission was made that there was no enduring benefit in the capital fie…

DIC INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2084/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2084/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Dic India Limited,..................................Appellant Transport Depot Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aabcc0703C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-10(1), Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkaldudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Hukumasema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…nue expenditure was considered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Timken India Ltd vs CIT reported in (2014) 51 taxmann.com 184 (Calcutta) dated 30.7.2014 which considered the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR [i.eCIT vs I.A.E.C. (Pumps) Ltd- 232 ITR 316 (SC) and ld. DR (i.eAlembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd vs CIT - 177 ITR 377 (SC) ]. The Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court held. as under:- 5. Mr.Majumdar, learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical with those in the case ofAlembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 17…

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 572/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 & 572/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. M/S.Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – Sivanandam, Of Income Tax, No.1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle-5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai- 600 030. [Pan: Aadcr 5531 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

…not entitled to use the technical know-how made available in pursuance to the agreement after termination of the agreement and after expiry of period of twenty years. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. I.A.E.C (Pumps) Ltd, 232 ITR 316, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had concurred with the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court, where the features of the agreement clearly establishes that it is only license to use the technical knowhow was a revenue expenditure is clearly applicable. In the present case also as mentioned by us (supra) features of the agreement clearly establishe…

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 571/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 & 572/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. M/S.Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – Sivanandam, Of Income Tax, No.1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle-5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai- 600 030. [Pan: Aadcr 5531 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

…not entitled to use the technical know-how made available in pursuance to the agreement after termination of the agreement and after expiry of period of twenty years. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. I.A.E.C (Pumps) Ltd, 232 ITR 316, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had concurred with the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court, where the features of the agreement clearly establishes that it is only license to use the technical knowhow was a revenue expenditure is clearly applicable. In the present case also as mentioned by us (supra) features of the agreement clearly establishe…

ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2, CHENNAI vs. M/S INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 719/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the Revenue, 196 ITR 78 (Statute); CIT vs Sundaram Clayton, 136 ITR 350 (Mds); CIT vs Brakes India Ltd, 136 ITR 322(Mad); CIT vs Lakshmi Cardt Clothing, 149 ITR 712 and CIT vs IAEC Pumps, 110 ITR 353 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 232 ITR 316, are relevant. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has been consistently holding that grant of right to use technical know-how coupled with exclusive right to manufacture will not result in any asset of enduring benefit. In the case of Southern Switchgear(SS), the facts are that all drawings/specifications and other data furnished to SS were to…

ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2, CHENNAI vs. M/S INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 718/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the Revenue, 196 ITR 78 (Statute); CIT vs Sundaram Clayton, 136 ITR 350 (Mds); CIT vs Brakes India Ltd, 136 ITR 322(Mad); CIT vs Lakshmi Cardt Clothing, 149 ITR 712 and CIT vs IAEC Pumps, 110 ITR 353 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 232 ITR 316, are relevant. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has been consistently holding that grant of right to use technical know-how coupled with exclusive right to manufacture will not result in any asset of enduring benefit. In the case of Southern Switchgear(SS), the facts are that all drawings/specifications and other data furnished to SS were to…

REGAN POWERTECH PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 570/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT
Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…not entitled to use the technical knowhow made available in pursuance to the agreement after termination of the agreement and after expiry of period of twenty years. The ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. I.A.E.C (Pumps) Ltd, 232 ITR 316 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had concurred with the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court where the features of the agreement clearly establishes that it is only license to use the technical knowhow was a revenue expenditure is clearly applicable. In the present case also as mentioned by us (supra) features of the agreement clearly establishes…

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), , CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 476/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.476/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.570/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, Cit Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 16.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkateswara Reddy, CIT
Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…not entitled to use the technical knowhow made available in pursuance to the agreement after termination of the agreement and after expiry of period of twenty years. The ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. I.A.E.C (Pumps) Ltd, 232 ITR 316 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had concurred with the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court where the features of the agreement clearly establishes that it is only license to use the technical knowhow was a revenue expenditure is clearly applicable. In the present case also as mentioned by us (supra) features of the agreement clearly establishes…

M/S TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/101/2016HC Karnataka20 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260ASection 37(1)

…result in any acquisition of any capital asset to consider the expenditure as capital expenditure. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in 'CIT VS. CIBA OF INDIA LTD.', 69 ITR 692, CIT VS. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD', 232 ITR 316, 'PCIT VS. WESTERN AGRI SEEDS LTD', 'CIT VS. J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD.', 309 ITR 371, 'CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT', 319 ITR 113, 'CIT VS. ASHOKA MILLS LTD', 218 ITR 526, CIT VS. 9 HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.', ITA NO.3/2009 and 'CIT VS. LUWA INDIA LTD', 75 DTR 367. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue su…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAWIN SPORTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 59/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos. 59 & 60/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Indiawin Sports Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-6(2) Ltd. Room No.1903, 19th Floor 3rd Floor, Court House, Air India Building, Nariman Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Point, Mumbai-400021. Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002. I.T.A. Nos.230 & 231/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Indiawin Sports Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, Central Circle- 3rd Floor, Court House, 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi…

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAWIN SPORTS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCR8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mum…

INDIAWIN SPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4614/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AADCR8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3rd Floor Central circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mum…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. I.P. RINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3538/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35

…ce the entire royalty expenditure claimed by the appellant should be allowed as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd reported in 232 ITR 316 (SC) is applicable to the facts of appellant’s case. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of Rs 11,31,458/-. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of pre-operative expenditure as not an allowable deduction. 4.1 The Commissi…

I P RINGS LTD,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORP CIT-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3500/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35

…ce the entire royalty expenditure claimed by the appellant should be allowed as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd reported in 232 ITR 316 (SC) is applicable to the facts of appellant’s case. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of Rs 11,31,458/-. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of pre-operative expenditure as not an allowable deduction. 4.1 The Commissi…

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCEL-1(1), GURGAON

ITA 7487/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Kumar Karan, CIT-DR
Section 32

…the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex court in CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.: 69 ITR 692 (SC);Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC);CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd.: 165 ITR 51 (SC);CIT v. Indian Oxygen Ltd.: 218 ITR 337 (SC);CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd: 232 ITR 316 (SC) ;CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd. 236 ITR 314 (SC) and CIT vs. British India Corp. Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 (SC)and also, the recent decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hilton Roulands Ltd vs. CIT 255 taxman 209 for the principle that payment made for obtaining access to information and restricted license to the limited u…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CORNELL OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F Co No.217/Del/2011 (Ita No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Also Filed Co No.217/Del/2011 Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 80HSection 90C

…nly enlarged range of its existing products were pure findings of fact, and those facts having attained finality, expenditure incurred by assessee was revenue in nature - Held, yes 8.5 Ld. A.R. also relied upon the judgements cited as CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (S.C.), CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 110 ITR 353 (Mad.), CIT Vs Steel Plant (P) Ltd. 17 Taxman 301 (Bom.) and CIT Vs Southern Pressings (P) Ltd. 125 Taxman 714 (Mad.). By applying the ratio of judgements cited above relied upon by the Ld. A.R., to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that when the expenditure…

STELLAR CHEMICAL LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2014/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Stellar Chemical Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-5(3), Aayakarbhavan, 501, Arun Chambers, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400034. Pan No. Aaccs0823J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)

…preme Court ruled payments made for the right to have access to the technical knowledge and the fruits of continued research and experience of a foreign company and to use its patents and trademarks are on the revenue account. Also in CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the amount paid by the assessee to a foreign company for granting a license to use its patents and design exclusively in India for a period of 10 years with a right to renew it further to be of revenue in nature. In CIT v. Carburettors Ltd. 221 ITR 680, a company manufacturing carburettors made an outright purchase…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…how of the foreign company under an exclusive license, the payment in the nature of royalty made has been held to be revenue in nature. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • CIT v. Ciba India Ltd: 69 ITR 692 (SC) 111 • CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd.: 232 ITR 316 (SC) • Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746(Del) • Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT: 136 ITR 340 (Del) • CIT v. Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons (P) Ltd: 158 ITR 195 (Del.) CIT v. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.: 372 ITR 481 (Del.) • • Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT : 123 ITR 773 (AP) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. V. CIT: 114 ITR 443 (Kar.) • • CIT…

HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1099/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Huntsman International (India) Acit 10(1)(1), Private Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Light Hall B-Wing, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072

For Appellant: Shri F V IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das
Section 143(3)

…hat benefit accruing to the assessee from such payment for use of brand was transit in nature, that the assessee did not derive any enduring benefit or any permanent advantage. The assessee referred to the case of CIBA-India Ltd.(69 ITR 692), IAEC Pumps Ltd.(232 ITR 316).Without prejudice to the above, it was contended that if the payments made for brand use was treated as capital asset then depreciation@25% as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii)of the Act should be allowed. With regard to MSC, it was stated that on acquisition of textile effect business the manufacturing facilities of DDCL were not transfe…

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3