Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Polygraph Machines (P.) Ltd.

124 Taxmann 669High Court2002#8096 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Polygraph Machines (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred to discharge a contractual liability to bear the tax liabilities of payees is allowable as a deduction, even if it relates to TDS.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Standard Polygraph Machines · CIT v Standard Polygraph Machines · TDS liability · contractual liability · expenditure deduction · Section 40(a)(ii) · income tax act

Also reported as

243 ITR 788

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 192Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 195Section 195ASection 2(11)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)

Issues it is cited on

appeal before the tribunalpersoncompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Polygraph Machines (P.) Ltd.

DCIT CC 7(2).Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Man Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 14ASection 194ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 DCIT CC 7(2), Man Industries (India) Ltd., Room No. 637, Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Man House, S.V. Road, Vile Vs. M.K. Road, Parle (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400056. PAN NO. AAACM 2675 G Appellant Respondent : Mr. K. Gopal Assessee by Revenue by : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR : 26/09/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/11/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 29.11.20…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R
Section 143Section 250

…ITA No.34/Bang/2023 M/s. Expat Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Expat Engineering India Ltd. Regd. Office Carlton Towers, A Wing, 3rd Floor, Unit No.301-3-314 ACIT No.1 Old Airport Road Vs. Circle-2(1)(2) Bangalore 560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCE9003D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravi Shankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 31.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2023 O R D E R PER CHAN…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1139/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM ITA No.1139/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/s.Expat Engineering India Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.1, 3rd Floor, A-Wing of Income-tax, Circle 2(1)(2) v. Carlton Towers, HAL 2nd Stage Bangalore. Old Airport Road Bangalore – 560 008. PAN : AABCE9003D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 Date of Hearing : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This…

Man Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range -7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 195A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale(JM) I.T.A. No. 1490/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1491/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 456/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. ACIT, Central Man Industries (India) Limited 101 Man House, S.V. Road Range-7(2) Vile Parle West Room No. 655 Mumbai-400 056. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. PAN : AAACM 2675G Road, Mumbai 400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Biren Shah Department by Shri Chetan M. Kacha Date of Hearing 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- All…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP No.31/Bang/2022 AND Assessment year : 2017-18 Expat Engineering India Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Carlton Towers, A Wing, Income Tax, 3rd Floor, Unit No.301-314, Circle 2(1)(2), No.1, Old Airport Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. PAN: AABCE 9003D APPELLANT / APPLICANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajgopal, CA Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Efs Facilities Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8347/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 8346 & 8347/Del/2018 Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ACIT, Circle-8(1) Vs. EFS Facilities Services (India) New Delhi – 110 002 Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2A, Uppal Plaza, M-6, Jasola, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025 PAN AACCD8364M (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Jain, CA Date of Hearing 21/02/2022 Date of 11/04/2022 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM These two appeals by the Revenue are…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Efs Facilities Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8346/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 8346 & 8347/Del/2018 Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ACIT, Circle-8(1) Vs. EFS Facilities Services (India) New Delhi – 110 002 Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2A, Uppal Plaza, M-6, Jasola, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025 PAN AACCD8364M (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Jain, CA Date of Hearing 21/02/2022 Date of 11/04/2022 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM These two appeals by the Revenue are…

Dy CIT CC 7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Man Global Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

ITA 7440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

…अिधकरण “B” "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। म"। म"। म"। आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद" एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद" सम" । BEFORE SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपी…

Anand I-Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1560/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Ms. Rachana GurnaniFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 37Section 40

…because as per the terms of agreement with the payees, the assessee was required to bear the tax liabilities of the payees. Therefore, the Bench relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Standard Polygraph Machine Pvt. Ltd., [2000] 243 ITR 788 (Mad.) has allowed the expenditure since it was incurred to discharge a contractual liability. In the facts of the present case, no material has been brought on record to show that the assessee has to bear the TDS liability on account of the payees as per any contractual agreement. At least, no material evidence to indicate existence of such cont…

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Chiron Behring Vaccines P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5579/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-9(2)(1) M/S Chiron Behring R. No.665A 6Th Floor, Vcaccines Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 501, Shri Amba Shanti Vs. M. K. Road, Chambers, Anderi Kurla Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacc6494P

Section 36(1)(VII)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘सी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT-9(2)(1) M/s Chiron Behring R. No.665A 6th Floor, Vcaccines Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 501, Shri Amba Shanti Vs. M. K. Road, Chambers, Anderi Kurla Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACC6494P राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal-DR "नधा"रती क" ओर…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Rambus Chip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

…of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO(1985) 154 ITR 148 wherein it was held that excise duty was part of the ‘consideration’. Another direct decision covering the question is by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Polygraph Machines (P) Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 788. Before leaving this issue we may say that the words ‘lumpsum’ as used before the word ‘consideration’ in section 35AB, only exclude periodical or turnover based payments like royalty etc., and any one time payment for the know-how would fall within the expression ‘lump sum’ if it is fixed and specified in the agreement, although it may be payabl…

M/S Rambus Chip Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

…of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO(1985) 154 ITR 148 wherein it was held that excise duty was part of the ‘consideration’. Another direct decision covering the question is by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Polygraph Machines (P) Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 788. Before leaving this issue we may say that the words ‘lumpsum’ as used before the word ‘consideration’ in section 35AB, only exclude periodical or turnover based payments like royalty etc., and any one time payment for the know-how would fall within the expression ‘lump sum’ if it is fixed and specified in the agreement, although it may be payabl…

Director of Income Tax vs. Italian Thai Development Co Ltd

ITA/576/2012HC Delhi18 Sept 2012
Section 195(2)Section 244ASection 248Section 256(1)Section 40

…Ltd. v. CTO reported in [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) wherein it was held that excise duty was part of the 11 “consideration”. Another direct decision covering the question is by the Madras High Court in the case of Standard Polygraph Machines P. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 788 (Mad.).” 4. Having regard to the above reasoning which we have no reason to 2012:DHC:5829-DB ITA-576/2012 Page 5 disagree with, and the language of Section-40 (a) (ii) - which in our opinion is expansive enough to cover payments of the kind as the Court has now to deal with – we feel that no substantial question of law arises for co…

Director of Income Tax vs. Italian Thai Development Co Ltd

ITA - 576 / 2012HC Delhi18 Sept 2012
Section 195(2)Section 244ASection 248Section 256(1)Section 40

…Ltd. v. CTO reported in [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) wherein it was held that excise duty was part of the 11 “consideration”. Another direct decision covering the question is by the Madras High Court in the case of Standard Polygraph Machines P. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 788 (Mad.).” 4. Having regard to the above reasoning which we have no reason to 2012:DHC:5829-DB ITA-576/2012 Page 5 disagree with, and the language of Section-40 (a) (ii) - which in our opinion is expansive enough to cover payments of the kind as the Court has now to deal with – we feel that no substantial question of law arises for co…

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Polygraph Machines (P.) Ltd. (124 Taxmann 669) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax