What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Denso India Limited authority for?

Expenditure incurred for developing import substitute parts, even if treated as deferred revenue expenditure, is allowable as revenue expenditure if it's not of a capital nature and doesn't grant exclusive or enduring rights.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Denso India Limited (318 ITR 140)

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Denso India Limited?

18 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Denso India Limited (318 ITR 140), spanning 2013 to 2023.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

…s or in law in AY 2016-17 from those in preceding years as evidenced from the orders of assessment for AY 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 appearing at pages 46-49 of Paper Book. In CIT vs. Amit Jain (2015) 374 ITR 550 (Del) and in CIT vs. Denso India Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 62 (Del) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where the AO has been following a view for the past several years, he cannot depart from the same when there has been no change in law or facts. 15 9. We may note the facts and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT (Exemption) vs. Hamdard National Foundation (India) (2022) 441 ITR 348 (Del.). In…

M/S GREEN PEARL ELECTRONICS P LTD,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 891/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. Pan: Aancs 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

…treatment given by the assessee in the books of accounts. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Denso India Ltd.(2009) 318 ITR 140, where on identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court held that where assessee manufacturing auto electrical parts incurred expenditure for setting up separate cell for developing import substitute parts, the expenditure in question was allowable as revenue expenditure. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order…

M/S GREEN PEARL ELECTRONICS P LTD,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 890/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. Pan: Aancs 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

…treatment given by the assessee in the books of accounts. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Denso India Ltd.(2009) 318 ITR 140, where on identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court held that where assessee manufacturing auto electrical parts incurred expenditure for setting up separate cell for developing import substitute parts, the expenditure in question was allowable as revenue expenditure. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order…

M/S BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/49/2012HC Karnataka24 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 37(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.49 OF 2012 BETWEEN: M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD, SITE NO.10/1A, KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI HOODI VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560048 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. SANJEEV ARORA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI. K.K. ARORA. ... APPELLANT (BY Mr. S. PARTHASARATHI, A/W Ms. JINEETHA CHATERJEE, ADV.,) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(2), 5TH FLOOR, R.P. BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,…

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1512/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 195Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271Section 40a

…roducts Ltd., 177 Taxman 331 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs. Info Vergix Technologies Ltd., 323 ITR 52 (Del.) (vii) CIT vs. Munjal Showa ltd., 329 ITR 449 (Del.) (viii) CIT vs. Industrial Finances Corpn. of India Ltd., 185 Taxman 296 (Del.) (ix) CIT vs. Denso India Ltd., 318 ITR 140 (Del.) (x) CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., ITA No. 2/2002 dated 04.08.2015 (xi) Naraingarh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 204 Taxman 90 (Del.)(Mag) (xii) CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd., ITA No. 24/2012 dated 17.01.2012 xi. The invoice is dated 21.02.2008 and the payment has been made in respect of the said sum before the end of the financial year. (see…

DENSO INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our

ITA 4788/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR

…g to provision for bad and doubtful debts. As far as the issue of royalty is concerned, it is seen that this issue is covered in favour of assessee in assessee’s own case by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Denso India Ltd. reported in 374 ITR 62(Delhi) (MAG.) wherein it was held that the royalty paid by the assessee to its parent company was revenue expenditure and could not be treated as capital expenditure. The TPO has disallowed the impugned amount being 25% of royalty payment by observing the same as being capital in nature. However, the issue is clearly covered in favour of the as…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DENSO INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4365/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kanchal Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92C

…oyalty is a revenue expenditure. It can be seen from the table above that the sales of the respondent have kept on increasing thereby entailing payment of royalty and thus satisfying the benefit and need test. The Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Denso India Ltd. (374 ITR 62) also upheld the approach of the ITAT and held royalty to be a revenue expenditure.  Benefit of +/- 5% range as mandated under proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act to be allowed In view of the above, the Respondent request your goodself to uphold the order of CIT(A). Further, without prejudice to the above, in case your goodself upholds the order…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DENSO INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1751/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kanchal Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92C

…oyalty is a revenue expenditure. It can be seen from the table above that the sales of the respondent have kept on increasing thereby entailing payment of royalty and thus satisfying the benefit and need test. The Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Denso India Ltd. (374 ITR 62) also upheld the approach of the ITAT and held royalty to be a revenue expenditure.  Benefit of +/- 5% range as mandated under proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act to be allowed In view of the above, the Respondent request your goodself to uphold the order of CIT(A). Further, without prejudice to the above, in case your goodself upholds the order…