CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.

243 ITR 284High Court2000#5737 most cited

What is CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

Contributions made by a company to employees are allowable deductions if they are out of business expediency and wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Disallowance is not called for in such cases.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. · business expediency · wholly and exclusively for business purpose · employee contributions · disallowance · section 14A · deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 10(1)Section 10(2A)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145Section 145ASection 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(9)section 10(2a)section 10(1)national faceless assessment centrebusiness expediencysection 40(a)(i)faceless assessmentagricultural incomesection 14aassistant commissionercompanysection 250

Judgments citing CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…igh Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (ITA Nos. 4923 & 6063/Mum/1989) (Mum); and vi. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999) (Mum). 31.7. the Ld.AR relied on the decision of cases decided in favour of the assessee by ITAT in own case vide Order dated: • 11 October 2024 for AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 • 06 June 2023 for AY 2009-1…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…igh Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (ITA Nos. 4923 & 6063/Mum/1989) (Mum); and vi. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999) (Mum). 31.7. the Ld.AR relied on the decision of cases decided in favour of the assessee by ITAT in own case vide Order dated: • 11 October 2024 for AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 • 06 June 2023 for AY 2009-1…

O E N INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 861/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…, hence, the contribution is made out of business expediency and wholly and exclusively for the business purpose, no disallowance is called for and he also placed reliance on the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. 243 ITR 284 (Kerala). 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior DR by placing the reliance of the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called in their orders. 10. We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The grounds of appeal Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature, which does not require any specific adj…

O E N INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 860/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…, hence, the contribution is made out of business expediency and wholly and exclusively for the business purpose, no disallowance is called for and he also placed reliance on the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. 243 ITR 284 (Kerala). 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior DR by placing the reliance of the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called in their orders. 10. We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The grounds of appeal Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature, which does not require any specific adj…

O E N INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 859/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…, hence, the contribution is made out of business expediency and wholly and exclusively for the business purpose, no disallowance is called for and he also placed reliance on the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. 243 ITR 284 (Kerala). 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior DR by placing the reliance of the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called in their orders. 10. We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The grounds of appeal Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature, which does not require any specific adj…

SH TECH PARK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2043/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER SH Tech Park The ACIT Developers Pvt. Ltd. Circle-22(2) 2nd Floor, Vatika Vs. New Delhi Business Centre Vatika Triangle M.G. Road, Sushant Lok-1, Gurugram Haryana-122 002 PAN:AALCS0818E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. & Shri D.B. Jain, CA Respondent by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 21/06/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by…

RUNGTA MINES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1326/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…e case law cited above, the direction of Pr. CIT that only expenditure incurred for the benefit of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act is against the propositions of law laid down in the following cases: a) CIT vs. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. 243 ITR 284 (Ker.) b) CIT vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg Mills Ltd. 281 ITR 408 (Raj.) c) CIT vs. Coats Vijella India Ltd. 253 ITR 667 (Mad.) 5.2. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the decision of the Tribunal in Bengal NRI Complex Ltd. (supra), we have to hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee to fulfil the obligations of Section 135 of…

SIROYA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 409/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Siroya Developers Ito-17(3)(3)[Previously Assessed 101, Kingston Towers, With Acit-31(3)], Gd Ambekar Marg, Parel Tank Mumbai Road, Parel – East, Vs. Mumbai – 400 033

For Appellant: Shri B.V Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ld lead to a chain reaction of revaluing the closing stock of different assessment years. In support of his aforesaid observation the A.O relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 284 (Ker). Observing, that the opening stock was not the subject matter of the year under consideration as its value was determined on the basis of valuation of closing Siroya Developers Vs. ITO, 17(3)(3), Mumbai ITA No. 409/Mum/2017 – A.Y 2009-10 10 stock of the previous assessment year, the A.O revalued the closing stock for the year under conside…

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3371/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

Section 143(3)

…f the assessee-Indian Oil Corporation would receive education. This Court referred to a judgment of Kerala High Court in case of P.Balakrishnan, Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs.Travancore Cochin 23 | P a g e IDBI Bank Ltd.; AYs: 98-99 to 10-11, Chemicals Ltd., 243 ITR 284 and of the decision of this Court in case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) held that the Tribunal had correctly allowed the assessee‘s claim of expenditure. In view of this discussion, this question is not entertained.‖ We, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the A…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 413/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(10)Section 40A(9)

…IT Appeal Nos.6227 (Delhi) of 1986 and 142 (Del) of 1987 dated 29.1.1993. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). 24. Further, ld A.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs N.Radhakrishnan, (2000) 243 ITR 284 (Ker) where the assessee a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture and sale of certain chemicals claimed in the assessment year 1985-86, deduction for payment of Rs.5,34,406/- made to FACT school where children of its employees were studying by way of reimbursement of the school’s proportionate expenditure on the ground that the same…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 412/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 37(1)Section 40A(10)Section 40A(9)

…IT Appeal Nos.6227 (Delhi) of 1986 and 142 (Del) of 1987 dated 29.1.1993. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). 24. Further, ld A.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs N.Radhakrishnan, (2000) 243 ITR 284 (Ker) where the assessee a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture and sale of certain chemicals claimed in the assessment year 1985-86, deduction for payment of Rs.5,34,406/- made to FACT school where children of its employees were studying by way of reimbursement of the school’s proportionate expenditure on the ground that the same…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

…IT Appeal Nos.6227 (Delhi) of 1986 and 142 (Del) of 1987 dated 29.1.1993. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). 24. Further, Id A.R. relied on the decision of Hon'bie Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs N.Radhakrishnan, (2000) 243 ITR 284 (Ker) where the assessee a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture and sale of certain chemicals claimed in the assessment year 1985-86, deduction for payment of Rs.5,34,406/- made to FACT school where children of its employees were studying by way of reimbursement of the school's proportionate expenditure on the ground that the same…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…iance on the following judicial decision in this regard. Shri Venkatsatyanarayana Rice Mills vs CIT [223 ITR 101](SC) CIT versus Indian radiators Ltd 436 ITR 719 Madras CIT versus Emiici Engineering Ltd 242 ITR 86 CIT versus Travancore Cochin chemicals Ltd 243 ITR 284 33. The ld DR on the other hand, contended that this facility was restricted to only officers and not employees, hence, it was arbitrary and unreasonable, hence, assessee being a government owned bank falling within the definition as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India could not do so and, therefore, expenditure was correctly disallowed…

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…iance on the following judicial decision in this regard. Shri Venkatsatyanarayana Rice Mills vs CIT [223 ITR 101](SC) CIT versus Indian radiators Ltd 436 ITR 719 Madras CIT versus Emiici Engineering Ltd 242 ITR 86 CIT versus Travancore Cochin chemicals Ltd 243 ITR 284 33. The ld DR on the other hand, contended that this facility was restricted to only officers and not employees, hence, it was arbitrary and unreasonable, hence, assessee being a government owned bank falling within the definition as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India could not do so and, therefore, expenditure was correctly disallowed…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

…Appeal Nos.6227 (Delhi) of 1986 and 142 (Del) of 1987 dated 29.1.1993. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). 24. Further, ld A.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs N.Radhakrishnan, (2000) 243 ITR 284 (Ker) where the assessee a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture and sale of certain chemicals claimed in the assessment year 1985-86, deduction for payment of Rs.5,34,406/- made to FACT school where children of its employees were studying by way of reimbursement ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 of the sch…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…avancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd (supra) was well applicable which has not been rebutted or controverted by the ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue before us. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court reported in 243 ITR 284, confirm the action of ld. CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.’ Respectfully following the said order of the Hon'ble ITAT, we allow this ground in favour of the assessee and hold that the expenses incurred for welfare of the employees does not come within the purview of section 40A(9) of the IT Act, 1961 and in that view deleted…

M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ADCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…notice issued by the Ld. PCIT, stating that expenses incurred for corporate social responsibility were for the purpose of its own business. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284), assessee contended that expenses which were incurred for the welfare of the employees and their children formed a part of the corporate social responsibility expenses. In so far as interest payments were concerned, reply of the assessee was that such interests were paid to banks and Indian Navy. As per the assessee, loans were taken and squ…

CA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 6(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8376/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…ries Ltd.(1 SOT836),Marg Marketing & Research Group (91TTJ813),George Oakes Ltd.(303 ITR357),Uniflex Industries (P) Ltd.(15 SOT246),Eastern Bengal Jute(112 ITR 575),Andhra Pradesh IRF(236 ITR 648),Haryana Minerals(242 ITR 704),Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.(243 ITR 284).DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that during the year under consideration out of the total invoices amounting to Rs.25,29,99,544/- towards license fees issued,the assessee recognised Rs.5, 33,49,335/-as Revenue-License fees in the Profit and loss…

ACIT CIR 10(1), MUMBAI vs. CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWAN AS C.A. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8106/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…ries Ltd.(1 SOT836),Marg Marketing & Research Group (91TTJ813),George Oakes Ltd.(303 ITR357),Uniflex Industries (P) Ltd.(15 SOT246),Eastern Bengal Jute(112 ITR 575),Andhra Pradesh IRF(236 ITR 648),Haryana Minerals(242 ITR 704),Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.(243 ITR 284).DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that during the year under consideration out of the total invoices amounting to Rs.25,29,99,544/- towards license fees issued,the assessee recognised Rs.5, 33,49,335/-as Revenue-License fees in the Profit and loss…

CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P LTD`,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8218/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…ries Ltd.(1 SOT836),Marg Marketing & Research Group (91TTJ813),George Oakes Ltd.(303 ITR357),Uniflex Industries (P) Ltd.(15 SOT246),Eastern Bengal Jute(112 ITR 575),Andhra Pradesh IRF(236 ITR 648),Haryana Minerals(242 ITR 704),Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.(243 ITR 284).DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that during the year under consideration out of the total invoices amounting to Rs.25,29,99,544/- towards license fees issued,the assessee recognised Rs.5, 33,49,335/-as Revenue-License fees in the Profit and loss…

CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax