Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

31 DTR 582Reported decision#17691 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2016.

Judgments citing Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

MOTILAL OSWAL SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 22, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6204/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…ed the business, the assessee claimed the expenditure to be capital in nature and claimed depreciation. The revenue authorities denied the claim of be sham. 27. Before us, the AR placed reliance on the decision of ―i) Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT -31 DTR 582(Mum) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 1 year and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56…

ACIT CC 22, MUMBAI vs. MOTILAL OSWAL SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5788/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…ed the business, the assessee claimed the expenditure to be capital in nature and claimed depreciation. The revenue authorities denied the claim of be sham. 27. Before us, the AR placed reliance on the decision of ―i) Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT -31 DTR 582(Mum) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 1 year and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56…

MOTILAL OSWAL SECURITIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE 22, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4581/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…ed the business, the assessee claimed the expenditure to be capital in nature and claimed depreciation. The revenue authorities denied the claim of be sham. 27. Before us, the AR placed reliance on the decision of ―i) Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT -31 DTR 582(Mum) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 1 year and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56…

A.C.I.T. C.C.22, MUMBAI vs. MOTILAL OSWAL SECURITIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 7463/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…ed the business, the assessee claimed the expenditure to be capital in nature and claimed depreciation. The revenue authorities denied the claim of be sham. 27. Before us, the AR placed reliance on the decision of ―i) Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT -31 DTR 582(Mum) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 1 year and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56…

MOTILAL OSWAL SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 22, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7328/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…ed the business, the assessee claimed the expenditure to be capital in nature and claimed depreciation. The revenue authorities denied the claim of be sham. 27. Before us, the AR placed reliance on the decision of ―i) Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT -31 DTR 582(Mum) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 1 year and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. ii) CIT v Everest Advertising (Bombay High Court) – In this case non-compete fees was paid for a period of 3 years and the same was allowed as revenue expenditure. Sr.No. Case law Citation i. India Capital Markets P Ltd. v DCIT 56…

Hidelberg Cement India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (31 DTR 582) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax