CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd.

243 ITR 459High Court2000#1237 most cited

What is CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. authority for?

Royalty involves a payment for the exclusive right to use something. Merely sharing information about a machine's design, even if tailored to a buyer's needs, does not constitute a transfer of an exclusive right to use, and therefore may not be considered royalty.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. · royalty · exclusive right · intellectual property · physical property · transfer of right · section 9(1)(vii) · definition of royalty

Also reported as

109 Taxmann 369

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 234BSection 144CSection 271(1)(C)Section 148Section 263Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 9(l)(vii)section 209(1)section 206asection 206aause of equipmentsection 35abbsection 44bbbsection 9(l)section 35ddsection 9(2)section 44bbwaiver of loan

Judgments citing CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd.

Digite Inc. Usa, Pune vs. ADIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharydigite Inc. Usa Vs. Adit (International C/O. Kirtane & Pandit, Transaction), Cas, Office No.1 & 2, First Circle – 1(2) Floor, Lunawat Court, New Delhi – 110 002 Hotel Shiv Sagar Lane, Off. J. M. Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 004

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

…operty; a share of the profit, reserved by the owner for permitting another to use the property; the amount reserved or the rental to be paid the original owner of the whole estate. [Para 4]  The Madras High Court in CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 459/109 Taxman 369 has explained the concept of royalty as the payment made by a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing which may be either physical or intellectual property or thing. The exclusivity of the right in relation to the thing for which royalty is paid should be with the grantor of that r…

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ushings is with OCNLIC and assessee is merely providing alloys of Platinum and Rhodium, consideration for alloys cannot be treated as royalty. The case is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. [243 ITR 459], wherein it has been held that payment to be constituted as royalty should be the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thng. Similarly, the case is also covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), wherein it ha…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…Court in case of BSNL vs. UOI reported in (2006) 3 STT 245  Decision of AAR in case of Dell International Services India Ltd. In.re reported in (supra)  Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2000) 243 ITR 459  Decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of WIPRO Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in (2003) 86 ITD 407. 41. The AAR relying on its view in case of Dell International Services India Ltd. In., held as under: 12.5 It seems to us that the two expressions 'use' and 'right to use' are employed to bring within the net of taxation the consideration…

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…Court in case of BSNL vs. UOI reported in (2006) 3 STT 245  Decision of AAR in case of Dell International Services India Ltd. In.re reported in (supra)  Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2000) 243 ITR 459  Decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of WIPRO Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in (2003) 86 ITD 407. 41. The AAR relying on its view in case of Dell International Services India Ltd. In., held as under: 12.5 It seems to us that the two expressions 'use' and 'right to use' are employed to bring within the net of taxation the consideration…

Owens-Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7582/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 7582/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4773/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…f an alloy in question received by the assessee falls within the purview of term “Royalty”. 12. Coordinate Bench of Tribunal decided the issue by following the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. [243 ITR 459] and Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Since the technical know how for manufacturing of glass fiber including use of bushing has been provided by OCNLIC, a Dutch company, the royalty has been paid to said Dutch company and such the…

Owens-Corning Inc. (Through Representative Assessee-Owens-Corning (India)Private Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-&Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012 - 13

For Appellant: Shri J D MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivasa Raghavan S Iyengar
Section 1Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

…ushings is with OCNLIC and assessee is merely providing alloys of Platinum and Rhodium, consideration for alloys cannot be treated as royalty. The case is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. [243 ITR 459], wherein it has been held that payment to be constituted as royalty should be the payment made to a person who has exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing. Similarly, the case is also covered by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. ITO (47 ITR 418), wherein it h…

M/S. Voith Paper Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5(2)Section 9

…the transfer of design, if any, vis-a-vis other would not come within the purview of the said Explanation. This aspect of the matter is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 459, 463, where it was held as under : "In a contract for the design, manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of machinery which does not involve license of the patent concerning the machinery, or copyright of its design, mere supply of drawings before the manufacture is commenced to ensure that the buyer's requirements are fully taken care…

Digite Inc. Usa, Pune vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 382/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND. SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4918/Del/2012 & 2415/Del/2013, Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT 82, Pioneer Way, Circle- 1 (1) Suit No. 102, Mountain View, International Taxation California New Delhi USA – 94041 PAN No.AACCD7140F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT C/o. CA Kishor Phadke, Ofice Circle- 1 (2) No. 1 & 2, 1st Floor, Lunawat International Taxation Court, Off J. M. Road, New Delhi Shivajinagar, Pune – 411004 PAN No. AACCD71…

Digite Inc., Usa, Pune vs. ADIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 772/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND. SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4918/Del/2012 & 2415/Del/2013, Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT 82, Pioneer Way, Circle- 1 (1) Suit No. 102, Mountain View, International Taxation California New Delhi USA – 94041 PAN No.AACCD7140F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT C/o. CA Kishor Phadke, Ofice Circle- 1 (2) No. 1 & 2, 1st Floor, Lunawat International Taxation Court, Off J. M. Road, New Delhi Shivajinagar, Pune – 411004 PAN No. AACCD71…

M/S Digite Inc. Usa, Usa vs. ADIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 2415/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND. SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4918/Del/2012 & 2415/Del/2013, Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT 82, Pioneer Way, Circle- 1 (1) Suit No. 102, Mountain View, International Taxation California New Delhi USA – 94041 PAN No.AACCD7140F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT C/o. CA Kishor Phadke, Ofice Circle- 1 (2) No. 1 & 2, 1st Floor, Lunawat International Taxation Court, Off J. M. Road, New Delhi Shivajinagar, Pune – 411004 PAN No. AACCD71…

Digite Inc., Califorina vs. ADIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

ITA 4918/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 9Section 91

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND. SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4918/Del/2012 & 2415/Del/2013, Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2009-10 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT 82, Pioneer Way, Circle- 1 (1) Suit No. 102, Mountain View, International Taxation California New Delhi USA – 94041 PAN No.AACCD7140F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Digite Inc. Vs. ADIT C/o. CA Kishor Phadke, Ofice Circle- 1 (2) No. 1 & 2, 1st Floor, Lunawat International Taxation Court, Off J. M. Road, New Delhi Shivajinagar, Pune – 411004 PAN No. AACCD71…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 22 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Tag Corporation, Chennai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1599/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1599/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/S. Tag Corporation, The Acit, Non Corporate Circle 22(1), No.91, Thiruneermalai Road, Chennai – 45. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. Pan: Aaaft1842P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. Anita, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Sitaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 25.10.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaraman, CAFor Respondent: 25.10.2018
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40

…will not amount to payments made for fees for technical service. The payment made by the assessee will not amount to payment towards royalty because as held by the jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation reported in 243 ITR 459, “royalty” connotes to the exclusive right over a thing for allowing another to make use of that thing which may be either physical or intellectual property or thing. Hence, in the case of the assessee the provisions of TDS will not apply and therefore the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked. For the above stated reasons,…

DCIT, Circle-2, TDS, Kolkata vs. M/S. Manaksia Limited, Kolkata

ITA 92/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

…he relevant customizing design, supply and installation in such a case forming part and parcel of the purchase order does not attract u/s 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2 of the Act requiring TDS deduction. Yet another case law CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459 (Mad) echoes the very legal principle in concluding that limited purpose of such customize design, supply, and installation is to meet special requirements and not to enable the payer / deductor to manufacture the equipments itself with the aid of the design in question. This tribunal’s decision in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. ITO 310 ITR (AT)…

M/S. Manaksia Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(3) (TDS), Kolkata

ITA 2137/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

…he relevant customizing design, supply and installation in such a case forming part and parcel of the purchase order does not attract u/s 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2 of the Act requiring TDS deduction. Yet another case law CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459 (Mad) echoes the very legal principle in concluding that limited purpose of such customize design, supply, and installation is to meet special requirements and not to enable the payer / deductor to manufacture the equipments itself with the aid of the design in question. This tribunal’s decision in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. ITO 310 ITR (AT)…

Systems America (India) Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 905/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…following case laws:- i. Mphasis BFL Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (Taxation), Ward 19(2), Bangalore (2006) 9 SOT 756 (Bang) ii. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd. 381 ITR 31 (Del) iii. CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459 (Mad) iv. Vertical Software India P. Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 222 (Del) 36. In his rival submission, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) reported at 345 ITR 494 (Karn). 37. We have considered t…

ACIT, Circle-7(1) vs. System America India Ltd

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1492/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…following case laws:- i. Mphasis BFL Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (Taxation), Ward 19(2), Bangalore (2006) 9 SOT 756 (Bang) ii. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. M. Tech India P. Ltd. 381 ITR 31 (Del) iii. CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459 (Mad) iv. Vertical Software India P. Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 222 (Del) 36. In his rival submission, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) reported at 345 ITR 494 (Karn). 37. We have considered t…

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 837/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “एल ” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं रिवश सूद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.s/837/Mum/2007; 3431/Mum/2008; 3432/Mum/2008;3433/Mum/2008;3434/Mum/2008;3435/Mum/2008; 3436/Mum/ 2008; 3437/Mum/2008; 3440/Mum/2008; 3441/Mum/ 2008; 3442/Mum/ 2008; 3443/ Mum/ 2008;3444/Mum/2008; 4245/Mum/2008;4247/Mum/2008;4249/Mum/2008;4250/Mum/2008;4251/Mum/2008;42 52/Mum/2008;4253/Mum/2008;4261/Mum/2008;4278/Mum/2008;4279/Mum/2008; 4284/Mum/ 2008; ;4285/Mum/2008; 4286/Mum/2008;4287/M…

The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Communicatioins Ltd. ( Formerly Known As M/S. Reliance Infocomm Ltd), Navi Mumbai

ITA 4877/MUM/2007[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak JainFor Respondent: S/Shri Parag Vyas- DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “एल ” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं रिवश सूद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.s/837/Mum/2007; 3431/Mum/2008; 3432/Mum/2008;3433/Mum/2008;3434/Mum/2008;3435/Mum/2008; 3436/Mum/ 2008; 3437/Mum/2008; 3440/Mum/2008; 3441/Mum/ 2008; 3442/Mum/ 2008; 3443/ Mum/ 2008;3444/Mum/2008; 4245/Mum/2008;4247/Mum/2008;4249/Mum/2008;4250/Mum/2008;4251/Mum/2008;42 52/Mum/2008;4253/Mum/2008;4261/Mum/2008;4278/Mum/2008;4279/Mum/2008; 4284/Mum/ 2008; ;4285/Mum/2008; 4286/Mum/2008;4287/M…

The ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd., Raisen

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 349/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…Royalty. 6.2. Royalty has been given wider meaning both in the Income Tax Act and DTAA, which includes payment for design/drawing. Assessee has relied on judgment in the case of CIT V/s DAVY ASHMORE INDIA LTD. 190 ITR, CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459,etc. However, these cases are distinguishable on facts which are different and not of any support to the assessee. The design purchased by the assessee are not in respect of commissioning of plant but these are in respect of a IT(TP)A No.5/Ind/2011, IT(TP)A No.313/Ind/2011, IT(TP)A No.616/Ind/2012,& IT(TP)A No.120/Ind/2014 18 particular generator…

M/S Andritz Hydro Private Limited (Earlier Known As V A Tech Hydro Indai Pvt. Ltd.), Mandideep vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 316/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…Royalty. 6.2. Royalty has been given wider meaning both in the Income Tax Act and DTAA, which includes payment for design/drawing. Assessee has relied on judgment in the case of CIT V/s DAVY ASHMORE INDIA LTD. 190 ITR, CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459,etc. However, these cases are distinguishable on facts which are different and not of any support to the assessee. The design purchased by the assessee are not in respect of commissioning of plant but these are in respect of a IT(TP)A No.5/Ind/2011, IT(TP)A No.313/Ind/2011, IT(TP)A No.616/Ind/2012,& IT(TP)A No.120/Ind/2014 18 particular generator…