CIT v. TVS Ltd.

110 ITR 338High Court1977#12017 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. TVS 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

…and the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held in numerous other decisions that mere grant of exclusive right to manufacture may not result in acquiring any capital asset. In this regard, decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Lucas TVS Ltd, 110 ITR 338 which has been confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP of the Revenue, 196 ITR 78 (Statute); CIT vs Sundaram Clayton, 136 ITR 350 (Mds); CIT vs Brakes India Ltd, 136 ITR 322(Mad); CIT vs Lakshmi Cardt Clothing, 149 ITR 712 and CIT vs IAEC Pumps, 110 ITR 353 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 232 ITR 316, are rel…

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

…and the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held in numerous other decisions that mere grant of exclusive right to manufacture may not result in acquiring any capital asset. In this regard, decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Lucas TVS Ltd, 110 ITR 338 which has been confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP of the Revenue, 196 ITR 78 (Statute); CIT vs Sundaram Clayton, 136 ITR 350 (Mds); CIT vs Brakes India Ltd, 136 ITR 322(Mad); CIT vs Lakshmi Cardt Clothing, 149 ITR 712 and CIT vs IAEC Pumps, 110 ITR 353 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 232 ITR 316, are rel…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/Slmg Brands India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 3293/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

…nses are to be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The Id. AR relied on the decision In the case of TTK LIG Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1791 to 1796/Mad/2011 Dt.31.10.2012. Further the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. TVS Ltd 110 ITR 338 (Madras) held that when the payment made by the assessee to a company was in the nature of license fees which constitute an item of allowable expenditure in the computation of profit and gains and it cannot be a capital expenditure. In our opinion, the findings and reasons given by the CIT(Appeals) to allow the claim of the expenses in regard to…

M/S Lmg Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 3242/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

…nses are to be treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The Id. AR relied on the decision In the case of TTK LIG Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1791 to 1796/Mad/2011 Dt.31.10.2012. Further the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. TVS Ltd 110 ITR 338 (Madras) held that when the payment made by the assessee to a company was in the nature of license fees which constitute an item of allowable expenditure in the computation of profit and gains and it cannot be a capital expenditure. In our opinion, the findings and reasons given by the CIT(Appeals) to allow the claim of the expenses in regard to…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Lmg Brands India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the revenue’s appeal and assessee's C

ITA 3291/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojaridy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore. ….Appellant Vs. M/S. Lmg Brands India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 77 Town Centre Building, No.3, West Wing, Off Hal Airport Road, Yemlur, Bangalore-560 037 Pan Aaecm 2693J ……Respondent. C.O. No.08/Bang/2019 (In Ita No.3291/Bang/2018) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By Assessee) Assessee By: Shri Sharath Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 37

…o.08/Bang/2019 treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The ld. AR relied on the decision In the case of TTK LIG Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1791 to 1796/Mad/2011 Dt.31.10.2012. Further the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. TVS Ltd 110 ITR 338 (Madras) held that when the payment made by the assessee to a company was in the nature of license fees which constitute an item of allowable expenditure in the computation of profit and gains and it cannot be a capital expenditure. In our opinion, the findings and reasons given by the CIT(Appeals) to allow the claim of the expenses in regard to…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Munjal Showa Ltd

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to

ITA/85/2009HC Delhi06 Sept 2010
Section 143(3)

…td. v. CIT, [1980] 124 2010:DHC:4349-DB ITR 1, CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. P. Ltd., [1980] 123 ITR 538, Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd., [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC), CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1), [1977] 110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works, [1976] 102 ITR 187 (Mad), and Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 121 ITR 510 (Cal), held thus: “It would thus appear that the courts have applied different tests like starting of a new business on the basis of technical know-how received from the foreign firm, the exclusive right of the compa…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Munjal Showa Ltd

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to

ITA/86/2009HC Delhi06 Sept 2010
Section 143(3)

…td. v. CIT, [1980] 124 2010:DHC:4347-DB ITR 1, CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. P. Ltd., [1980] 123 ITR 538, Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd., [1968] 69 ITR 692 (SC), CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1), [1977] 110 ITR 338 (Mad), CIT v. Sarada Binding Works, [1976] 102 ITR 187 (Mad), and Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [1980] 121 ITR 510 (Cal), held thus: “It would thus appear that the courts have applied different tests like starting of a new business on the basis of technical know-how received from the foreign firm, the exclusive right of the compa…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s DCM Technologies Limited

ITA/861/2010HC Delhi15 Jul 2010
Section 260A

…y is capital or revenue, the „once for all‟ test as well as the test of „enduring benefit‟ may not be conclusive. Their Lordships also referred to the decisions in CIT v. CIBA of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC); CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited (No.1) (1977) 110 ITR 338 (Mad); CIT v. Sarada Binding Works (1976) 102 ITR 187 (Mad.); Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 510 (Cal); CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 538 (Bom.); Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.(supra) and eventually came to hold thus: “It wou…

CIT v. TVS Ltd. (110 ITR 338) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax