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

Expenditure on application software, which enhances business efficiency and requires a computer system to function, constitutes revenue expenditure rather than acquisition of a capital asset, even if it provides an enduring benefit.

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

88 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. IBM India Ltd. (357 ITR 88), spanning 2015 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 194J, Section 32, Section 9(1)(vi), Section 90(2), Section 143(3).

CIT v. IBM India Ltd. (357 ITR 88)

ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 197/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleito Varsha Mills, Khichan Phalodi E-51, Industrial Estate, Khichan, Phalodi, Jodhpur – 342308 Pan No.: Aaifv 9450 D Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 69A On Account Of Un-Explained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & By Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 145(3)Section 69A

…e of closing work in progress disclosed by the assessee and directed the AO to accept the value of closing work in progress declared by the assessee and delete the consequential addition made. The Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Rare Earths Ltd (2015) 375 ITR 276 (Bombay) considered the issue of non-moving stores and spares which corroded over a period of time due to wear and tear, written off in the subject year and held that where assessee's non moving stores and spares were corroded over a period of time due to wear and tear, assessee would be entitled to write off same in profit and loss account the I…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…rt of its contention, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 65, and in the case of CIT vs. IBM India Limited, reported in 357 ITR 88. 9.1 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee also submitted that in case the expenditures incurred on impugned application of software were not allowed as revenue expenditure, the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 60% considering the same as “computer including computer software. In contending so, the assessee placed reliance on t…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…rt of its contention, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 65, and in the case of CIT vs. IBM India Limited, reported in 357 ITR 88. 9.1 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee also submitted that in case the expenditures incurred on impugned application of software were not allowed as revenue expenditure, the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 60% considering the same as “computer including computer software. In contending so, the assessee placed reliance on t…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…rt of its contention, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 65, and in the case of CIT vs. IBM India Limited, reported in 357 ITR 88. 9.1 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee also submitted that in case the expenditures incurred on impugned application of software were not allowed as revenue expenditure, the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 60% considering the same as “computer including computer software. In contending so, the assessee placed reliance on t…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…rt of its contention, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 65, and in the case of CIT vs. IBM India Limited, reported in 357 ITR 88. 9.1 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee also submitted that in case the expenditures incurred on impugned application of software were not allowed as revenue expenditure, the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 60% considering the same as “computer including computer software. In contending so, the assessee placed reliance on t…

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…rt of its contention, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 65, and in the case of CIT vs. IBM India Limited, reported in 357 ITR 88. 9.1 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee also submitted that in case the expenditures incurred on impugned application of software were not allowed as revenue expenditure, the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 60% considering the same as “computer including computer software. In contending so, the assessee placed reliance on t…

GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2191/BANG/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 254

…e ratio laid down in various judicial precedents relied by the Appellant in support of the allowability of the provision of obsolete / slow moving inventory including ruling of the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s. IBM India Ltd [2015] 55 Taxmann.com 515. Page 3 of 10 Grounds relating to enhancement of income for obsolete / slow moving inventory of Wind Energy Division amounting to INR 1,77,41,995 6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts. in disallowing / adding back the provision of obsolete / slow moving inventory for Wind Energy Division and enhancing the income of the A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), CHENNAI., CHENNAI vs. M/S. CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT. LTD , CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "ायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 42/CHNY/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of 7th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN:AABCC-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 717/CHNY/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /…

COWTOWN SOFTWARE DESIGN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 500/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. Niraj D. Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…enditure. The same is extracted below. Cowtown So"ware Design Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.1. Additionally, ld. Counsel also placed a strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. IBM India Limited. [2013] 357 ITR 88 (Kar) wherein it was held that – “Application software enables assessee to carry out his business operation efficiently and smoothly - However, such software itself does not work on standalone basis - Same has to be fitted to a computer system to work -Such software enhances efficiency of operation It is an aid in manufacturing process rather than…

COWTOWN SOFTWARE DESIGN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 499/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. Niraj D. Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…enditure. The same is extracted below. Cowtown So"ware Design Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.1. Additionally, ld. Counsel also placed a strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. IBM India Limited. [2013] 357 ITR 88 (Kar) wherein it was held that – “Application software enables assessee to carry out his business operation efficiently and smoothly - However, such software itself does not work on standalone basis - Same has to be fitted to a computer system to work -Such software enhances efficiency of operation It is an aid in manufacturing process rather than…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix Building, The Joint / Deputy ITA/IT(TP)A Bagmane Commissioner of 2011-12 Nos. 1008, Constellation Income Tax, to 1092, 1166 & Business Park, Circle – 6(1)(1), 2014-15 484/Bang/2019 Outer Ring Road, Bangalore. Doddanekundi Circle, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAICS6290F M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix The…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix Building, The Joint / Deputy ITA/IT(TP)A Bagmane Commissioner of 2011-12 Nos. 1008, Constellation Income Tax, to 1092, 1166 & Business Park, Circle – 6(1)(1), 2014-15 484/Bang/2019 Outer Ring Road, Bangalore. Doddanekundi Circle, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAICS6290F M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix The…

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix Building, The Joint / Deputy ITA/IT(TP)A Bagmane Commissioner of 2011-12 Nos. 1008, Constellation Income Tax, to 1092, 1166 & Business Park, Circle – 6(1)(1), 2014-15 484/Bang/2019 Outer Ring Road, Bangalore. Doddanekundi Circle, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAICS6290F M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix The…

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix Building, The Joint / Deputy ITA/IT(TP)A Bagmane Commissioner of 2011-12 Nos. 1008, Constellation Income Tax, to 1092, 1166 & Business Park, Circle – 6(1)(1), 2014-15 484/Bang/2019 Outer Ring Road, Bangalore. Doddanekundi Circle, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAICS6290F M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix The…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix Building, The Joint / Deputy ITA/IT(TP)A Bagmane Commissioner of 2011-12 Nos. 1008, Constellation Income Tax, to 1092, 1166 & Business Park, Circle – 6(1)(1), 2014-15 484/Bang/2019 Outer Ring Road, Bangalore. Doddanekundi Circle, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAICS6290F M/s. Samsung R&D Institute India – Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., 2870, Phoenix The…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ला, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 518, 505, 506 & 507/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Titan Company Ltd., 1. The Assistant (Erstwhile known as Titan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Industries Ltd.,) Circle III(2), #3, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Chennai. Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. 2. The Joint / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer…

M/S CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicummins Technologies Acit Circle -1(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Ujjain Industrial Area No.2 A.B. Vs. Road Industrial Area Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan K. Ved. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cummins Technologies ACIT circle -1(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Ujjain Industrial Area No.2 A.B. Vs. Road Industrial Area Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCT2018B Assessee by Shri Ketan K. Ved. AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2022 of Commissioner…

CIT v. IBM India Ltd.

What is CIT v. IBM 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. IBM India Ltd.

ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), CHENNAI., CHENNAI vs. M/S. CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT. LTD , CHENNAI

COWTOWN SOFTWARE DESIGN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

COWTOWN SOFTWARE DESIGN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

M/S CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN