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.

The DCIT, 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 265/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

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 Va Tech Hydro India Private Limited), Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

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…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4077/DEL/2012[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

ITO (TDS), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 4076/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3596/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3595/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3594/DEL/2012[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 3593/DEL/2012[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 [Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3593 TO 3596/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. ITO(TDS), Airtel Centre Ward 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122015 (PAN: AAACB2894G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2011-…

Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd, Bangalore vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 8567/MUM/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.8567/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd. Dy.Cit-11 C/O, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Circle-2(1) Private Ltd., 6The Floor, Tower “D”, Vs. Mumbai. The Millenia, 1&2 Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 Pan No.Aafcr 0222 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Dhanesh Bafna िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chauhan सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2016 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8567/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Raytheon…

Wi Fi Networks Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee-company are allowed

ITA 1624/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133A

…e regarded as ‘royalty’ within the meaning of sec.9(1)(vi) of the Act. In support of this, assessee- company relied upon CIT vs. Ralliwolf Ltd (143 ITR 720), Associated Cements vs. Commissioner of Customs (35 ITR 707), CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.(243 ITR 459)(Mad.) and CIT vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. (139 ITR 806)(Guj.). The ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee-company, dismissed the appeals of the assessee- company vide para.3.6 in his order dated 5/12/2012 as under: “3.6 To summarise the facts, in the appellant’s case, the amount of Rs.5 crores was mad…

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd vs. Director of Income Tax

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA-131/2003HC Delhi31 Jan 2011
Section 195Section 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…co Printing Co. [139 ITR 806 (Guj)]. b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP). c) N.V. Philips Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [172 ITR 521]. d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Neyvali Lignite Corporation Ltd. [243 ITR 459 (Mad.)]. 43. It was, thus, urged that the same meaning to the term ‗royalty‘ should be assigned while interpreting Section 9(1)(vi) as well. He emphasized that one has to keep in mind that every item in Clause (iii) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) refers to an item of intellectual property. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis, theref…