Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

102 ITR 665High Court1976#10971 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 142(1) of Income Tax ActSection 143(1)Section 143(1) of Income Tax ActSection 143(3) of Income Tax ActSection 144CSection 144C of Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbenduring benefitsection 92bsection 32(1)section 35revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 32section 37(1)section 92section 144csection 37

Judgments citing Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI vs. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7181/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2280/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) The DCIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 16(2) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) The ACIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 17(1) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Arjun Raj, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Su…

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2536/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2280/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) The DCIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 16(2) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) The ACIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 17(1) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Arjun Raj, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Su…

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2280/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2280/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) The DCIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 16(2) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) The ACIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 17(1) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Arjun Raj, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Su…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3358/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2280/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) The DCIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 16(2) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) The ACIT M/s. Metronation Chennai Circle 17(1) Televesion Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Daily Thanthi, M-118 Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAFCM2626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Arjun Raj, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Su…

ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SNAPDEAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

…26 Taxman 544 (Bom) (iii) Dalmia Jain & Co. 81 ITR 754 (SC) (iv) Avery India Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 745 (Cal) (v) M.K. Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 86 ITR 38 (SC) & Travancore Sugar and Chemical Ltd. vs. CIT 62 ITR 566 (SC) (vi) D.F. Woodrofe and Company Ltd. vs. CIT 102 ITR 665 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs. J.K. Synthetic Ltd. 309 ITR 371 (Del) 8. The Ld. AO considered 50% of the expenditure claimed as capital in nature. This resulted in disallowance of Rs. 322,39,50,102/-. The total loss 4 was thus determined at Rs. 1786,21,57,510/- vide order dated 30.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 9. On…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. WYETH LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYETH LEDERLE LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…ment of a lump sum closes the liability to make repeated and periodic payments in the future, it may generally be regarded as a payment of a revenue character. 17. He brought to our notice the decision in the case of Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 665 (Mad.), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that it is the aim and object of the expenditure that would determine the character of the sum, whether it is a capital or revenue expenditure and neither the source nor the manner of payment may be of any consequence. 18. Further, the magnitude of expenditure does not decide the natu…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ADVANCE SURFACTANTS INDIA LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6520/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. Circle-1(2), 511/2/1, Rajokari New Delhi Delhi- 110038 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca9042Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

…ANCE shall continue to use the technical knowhow. Thus, it has acquired post termination rights and consequently enduring benefits. 5] The above view is supported with the judicial pronouncements made in the case of Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 665 (Madras) where it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that the assessee was not required to return any designs or plans that had been communicated to it. With the result, the assessee could use the technical data and knowledge acquired even after the period of agreement and deal with it as if it were its own assets. It was held that the ass…

JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVAQNCE SURFACTANTS INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2245/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2012-13 Jcit(Osd), Circle 1(2), Vs Advance Surfactants India Ltd., New Delhi. 511/2/1, Rajokari, New Delhi. Pan: Aabca9042Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2019 Order

Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years: 2012-13 JCIT(OSD), Circle 1(2), vs Advance Surfactants India ltd., New Delhi. 511/2/1, Rajokari, New Delhi. PAN: AABCA9042Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 10.04.2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 2.2.2016 in Appeal No.444/14-15 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-I,…

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-II,CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD

The Appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-003347-003347 - 2008Supreme Court06 May 2008
Section 35A

…e expenditure and does not come within the ambit of provisions of Section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the payment is a capital expenditure in view of the following judgments. A. Femmur Woodruf & Co.Ltd. V. CIT 102 ITR 665 (Mad) B. Ram Kumar Pharmaceuticals Works V CIT 119 ITR 33 (All). C. CIT V. Warmar Hindustan Ltd. 160 ITR 217 (AP) D. CIT V. Southern Switch Gears ltd. 148 ITR 272 (Mad)" On bare reading of the said question, it is clear that applicability of Section 35AB in the context of royalty paid to Kirloskar as a percenta…

Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (102 ITR 665) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax