CIT vs Sundaram Clayton, 136 ITR 350 (Mds); CIT vs Brakes India Ltd, 136 ITR 322(Mad); CIT v. Lakshmi Cardt Clothing

110 ITR 353High Court#18789 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT vs Sundaram Clayton, 136 ITR 350 (Mds); CIT vs Brakes India Ltd, 136 ITR 322(Mad); CIT v. Lakshmi Cardt Clothing

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

…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 relevant. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has been consistently holding that grant of right to use technical know-how coupled with exclusive right to manufacture will not result in any asset of enduring benefit. In the case of Southern Switchgear(SS), the facts are…

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CORNELL OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F Co No.217/Del/2011 (Ita No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Also Filed Co No.217/Del/2011 Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 28Section 80HSection 90C

…ere pure findings of fact, and those facts having attained finality, expenditure incurred by assessee was revenue in nature - Held, yes 8.5 Ld. A.R. also relied upon the judgements cited as CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (S.C.), CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 110 ITR 353 (Mad.), CIT Vs Steel Plant (P) Ltd. 17 Taxman 301 (Bom.) and CIT Vs Southern Pressings (P) Ltd. 125 Taxman 714 (Mad.). By applying the ratio of judgements cited above relied upon by the Ld. A.R., to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that when the expenditure on account of payment of royalty have been p…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CORNELL OVERSEAS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 28Section 32Section 80HSection 90C

…ere pure findings of fact, and those facts having attained finality, expenditure incurred by assessee was revenue in nature - Held, yes 8.5 Ld. A.R. also relied upon the judgements cited as CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (S.C.), CIT Vs IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 110 ITR 353 (Mad.), CIT Vs Steel Plant (P) Ltd. 17 Taxman 301 (Bom.) and CIT Vs Southern Pressings (P) Ltd. 125 Taxman 714 (Mad.). By applying the ratio of judgements cited above relied upon by the Ld. A.R., to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that 63 Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd. when the expenditure on account of…