CIT v. IBM India Ltd.

357 ITR 88High Court2013#1296 most cited

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.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. IBM India Ltd. · IBM India Limited · application software expenditure · revenue expenditure · capital asset · enduring benefit · section 35(1)(i) · section 32 · depreciation on software · business deductions · 357 ITR 88 · 55 Taxmann.com 515

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 515230 Taxmann 544

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 194JSection 32Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2AB)

Issues it is cited on

section 35(1)(i)section 8d(2)(ii)section 35(1)(iv)ready for usedepreciation on softwaresection 35(1)(ii)section 2(43)section 35(1)r&d expendituresection 9(2)section 14(a)section 170

Judgments citing CIT v. IBM India 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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर $संह, लेखा सद"य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vs. M/s.Ford India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of S.P.Koil Post, Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Chengalpattu-603 204. Unit, Chennai. [PAN: AAACM 4454 H] (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent) : अपीलाथ- क0 ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.Arvind Sonde, Advocate : Mr.Pathla…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर $संह, लेखा सद"य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vs. M/s.Ford India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of S.P.Koil Post, Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Chengalpattu-603 204. Unit, Chennai. [PAN: AAACM 4454 H] (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent) : अपीलाथ- क0 ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.Arvind Sonde, Advocate : Mr.Pathla…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Kareems

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

RP/95/2013HC Karnataka24 Jun 2016

Bench: B.MANOHAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 80H

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.95 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-8(1), MUMBAI. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. ABB LIMITED (FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED) NO.22A, SHAH INDUSTRI…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3947/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…upon 19 I.T.A.Nos.3947,3048,3949/Del/2013 I.T.A.Nos.3517-3520/Del/2013 the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainroop Sampatram Vs CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (S.C.) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 276, CIT Vs Corporation Bank Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 616 (Kar.), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) (7) TMI-299-ITAT- Del. 6. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has changed the method of valuation and has not reflected the true profits. He submitted that the assessee has not followed the mandate of Section 145A of the Act, wh…

M/S National Fertilizer Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3520/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…upon 19 I.T.A.Nos.3947,3048,3949/Del/2013 I.T.A.Nos.3517-3520/Del/2013 the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainroop Sampatram Vs CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (S.C.) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 276, CIT Vs Corporation Bank Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 616 (Kar.), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2005) (7) TMI-299-ITAT- Del. 6. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has changed the method of valuation and has not reflected the true profits. He submitted that the assessee has not followed the mandate of Section 145A of the Act, wh…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Bunge India P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4336/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Vispi PatelFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra
Section 254(1)Section 92A

…nies Act -Schedules VI,that if a current assets did not have a value on realisation in the ordinary course of business at which they were to be stated in the balance sheet the provision had to be provided for. He relied upon the case of Indian Rare Earth Ltd.(375 ITR 276),delivered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.The DR supported the order of the FAA. 37.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that though the assessee had claimed that it had followed a scientific method with regard to the obsolete stores,but it has not furnished any documentary evidence before the AO or th…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 680/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…f CIT(Appeals) and relied on the following decisions:- CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. 20 ITR 475 (SC) CIT v. Panacea Biotech Ltd., Delhi HC judgment dated 17.1.2012 in ITA No.22 & 24/2012. CIT v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd. 349 ITR 65 (Kar) CIT v. IBM India Ltd. 357 ITR 88 (Kar) 38. We have heard both the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 124 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10 held as follows:- “ …… There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is n…

Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…f CIT(Appeals) and relied on the following decisions:- CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. 20 ITR 475 (SC) CIT v. Panacea Biotech Ltd., Delhi HC judgment dated 17.1.2012 in ITA No.22 & 24/2012. CIT v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd. 349 ITR 65 (Kar) CIT v. IBM India Ltd. 357 ITR 88 (Kar) 38. We have heard both the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 124 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10 held as follows:- “ …… There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is n…