CIT v. Swaraj Engines Ltd.

309 ITR 443Supreme Court of India#17689 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Swaraj Engines Ltd.

ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2, CHENNAI vs. M/S INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 719/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of. The capital element involved definitely, in our considered opinion, can be attributed and has been covered in the lump sum payment made in the beginning, which has been allowed u/s 35AB. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Swaraj Engines Ltd, 309 ITR 443, has clearly held that section 35AB is to be applied in respect of expenditure on technical know-how which is in the capital field and the entire amount is allowable in case it is in the revenue filed. There are numerous cases available on this issue, but there is no need to discuss all of them. The treatment given by the ld. CIT(A) to 25% of the…

ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2, CHENNAI vs. M/S INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 718/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of. The capital element involved definitely, in our considered opinion, can be attributed and has been covered in the lump sum payment made in the beginning, which has been allowed u/s 35AB. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Swaraj Engines Ltd, 309 ITR 443, has clearly held that section 35AB is to be applied in respect of expenditure on technical know-how which is in the capital field and the entire amount is allowable in case it is in the revenue filed. There are numerous cases available on this issue, but there is no need to discuss all of them. The treatment given by the ld. CIT(A) to 25% of the…

ACIT, RANGE-I vs. JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,,

ITA 4409/DEL/2003[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg.

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT- DR
Section 35ASection 37

…ments made for acquiring know how. The expenditure was of revenue nature incurred in the day to day running of the business. Provisions of Sec. 35AB of the Act have been wrongly applied by the AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C1T v. Swaraj Engines 309 ITR 443 (SC) in the context of applicability of section 35AB of the Act held that the said provisions apply only if the expenditure is of capital in nature and the AO or ld. CIT(A) has not brought out any allegation against the assessee that claim of expenditure was capital in nature. The ld. AR further pointed out that the AO invoked and applied provisi…

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD. vs. ACIT, RANGE-I,,

ITA 4307/DEL/2003[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg.

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT- DR
Section 35ASection 37

…ments made for acquiring know how. The expenditure was of revenue nature incurred in the day to day running of the business. Provisions of Sec. 35AB of the Act have been wrongly applied by the AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C1T v. Swaraj Engines 309 ITR 443 (SC) in the context of applicability of section 35AB of the Act held that the said provisions apply only if the expenditure is of capital in nature and the AO or ld. CIT(A) has not brought out any allegation against the assessee that claim of expenditure was capital in nature. The ld. AR further pointed out that the AO invoked and applied provisi…

M/S DIFFUSION ENGINEERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/1010/2008HC Karnataka17 Apr 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 260Section 35Section 35ASection 37Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2015 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.1010 OF 2008 BETWEEN: M/s.DIFFUSION ENGINEERS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIFFUSION ENGINEERS PVT LTD REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR PRASHANT GARG NO.35/4, 2 & 3, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 030. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR AND SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATES) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-1, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT…

CIT v. Swaraj Engines Ltd. (309 ITR 443) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax