CIT v. Karnataka State Industrial Investment Corporation

163 ITR 657Reported decision#22939 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka State Industrial Investment Corporation

M/S. Adadyn Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for

ITA 995/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaita No.994 & 995/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Das, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 133A

…of capital expenditure. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ITA Nos.994 & 995/Bang/2019 M/s. Adadyn Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 17 Karnataka State Industrial and Development Corporation (163 ITR 657). 9. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, strongly supporting order of CIT(A) submitted that the facts brought out by the A.O. clearly indicate the fact that expenditure incurred by the assessee towards salary cost for software development and marketing expenses is for development of new software platform to be used in market, which definitely ca…

M/S. Adadyn Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for

ITA 994/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaita No.994 & 995/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Das, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 133A

Ushdev International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 3294/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ushdev International Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 020 Road, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Ushdev International Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Income Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 001 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 80I

…conclusion that it is engaged only in financing and investment business and it was held that the actual expenditure was in pursuant of its regular business. The Delhi High Court referred to the case of CIT VS Karnataka State Industrial Investment Corporation 163 ITR 657 in which the Karnataka High Court held that expenditure was incurred in the same line of business of promotion to promote and operate schemes for industrial growth of Karnataka. The case of CIT, Tamil Nadu- II Vs Seshasayee Bros P. Ltd. (1981) 127 ITR 218 (Mad) was also referred in which it was held the assessee’s business was the promotion of ne…