Delhi in CIT v. Electrolux Kelvenator Ltd.

357 ITR 665High Court2013#13117 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Delhi in CIT v. Electrolux Kelvenator Ltd.

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

ITA 209/DEL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…s Ltd. vs. DCIT: ITA No.3702/Del/2017 (Del Trib.); 4) PCIT vs. Harsh International (P) Ltd. 431 ITR 118 (Del.); 5) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers: 368 ITR 722 (Del.); 6) CIT vs. Rahul Mehta: ITA No. 423/2011 (Del.) 7) CIT vs. Electrolux Kelvenatro Ltd. 357 ITR 665 (Del.); & 8) CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P&H).” 9. Undisputedly, assessee company has claimed a deduction of Rs.477,142,665 on account of “non-compete fee” amortized in its returns of income supported with computation sheet. When the claim lodged by the assessee company, in its return of income on the basis of its audited financials hav…

THE ACIT,(OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CLP POWER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1128/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…substantial question of law amending on the issue. The learned counsel thereafter referred to the ITA No.1128/Ahd/15 [DCIT vs. CLP Power India Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Electrolux Kelvinatro Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 665 (Delhi) for the proposition that where the issue of allowance of expenditure as revenue expenditure or capital nature is debatable, mere disallowance of assessee’s claim could not be a ground to impose penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Another reference was made to the decision rendered in CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 394 (Punjab &…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIGNAHARTA INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 48/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral

Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

…ioner of Income Tax (Appeals) placing reliance of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported as 322 ITR 158 and the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. reported as 357 ITR 665 deleted the penalty. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. Shri K.K. Thakar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee had received non compete fees. The assessee capitalized the same. However, the Assessing Officer held the same as revenue receipt and mad…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS PTY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3459/DEL/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Shashi M, Kapila, P. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K.Dhall, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274(2)(b)Section 36Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3459/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97) Standard Chartered Grindlays Vs. DDIT Pty Limited Circle-2(2), International (Formerly known as Standard Taxation Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.) C/o. Shashi M. Kapila, (Adv.) 17, Mahatma Ghandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV New Delhi. New Delhi (PAN : AAACA1049A)) Appellant Respondent ASSESSEE BY : Smt. Shashi M, Kapila, P. Sharma, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri G.K.Dhall, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10.10.2018 Date of Order : 25.10…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6458/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajnit Singh, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…BE IMPOSED — WHETHER GAINS LONG-TERM OR DCIT Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, SHORT¬TERM. A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AT MATERIAL TIME — NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME — NO PENALTY LEVIABLE — INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, s. 271(1 )(c) 357 ITR 665 (Del)- ELECTROLUX KELVENATRO LTD. PENALTY — CONCEALMENT OF INCOME — NON-COMPETE FEE — WHETHER CAPITAL OR REVENUE EXPENDITURE — ISSUE DEBATABLE AND NOT FREE FROM DOUBT WHEN ASSESSEE FILING RETURN — PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED — INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, s. 271(13(0 When the assessee makes claim for a deduction and disclosed all necessary facts relati…

M/S HCL PEROT SYSTEMS LTD.,BENGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2201/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

…ble and accordingly, no penalty can be levied on the assessee. 8.1 According to ld. AR, it is well settled that penalty cannot be imposed on debatable issues and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Electrolux Kelvenator Ltd. 357 ITR 665 (Del) and CIT vs. Jaswinder Singh Ahuja 351ITR262(Del.) 9. Ld. DR for the revenue does not want us to interfere in the order of the authorities below and relied on their orders. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is well settled that the finding in the assessment proceedings alone cannot be the sole basis to justif…

M/S HCL PEROT SYSTEMS LTD.,BENGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2200/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4677/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Bhavita Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 115Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4677/Del./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading vs. DCIT, Circle 5 (1), Company (P) Limited, New Delhi. 15, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi – 110 011. (PAN : AAACM0345D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Bhavita Kumar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal, at the in…