Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. CIT

105 TTJ 1002Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#14665 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…extend to more than one order cannot be considered as capital expenditure. He relied on the following decisions : i. JCIT Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd. 3 SOT 22 (Del – Trib) ii. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 682 (Kar) iii. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/20…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…extend to more than one order cannot be considered as capital expenditure. He relied on the following decisions : i. JCIT Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd. 3 SOT 22 (Del – Trib) ii. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 682 (Kar) iii. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/20…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…extend to more than one order cannot be considered as capital expenditure. He relied on the following decisions : i. JCIT Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd. 3 SOT 22 (Del – Trib) ii. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 682 (Kar) iii. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/20…

Bayer Cropscience Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7619/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…rocessing and refining of insecticides, fungicides,weedicides, rodenticides and other chemicals used in the protection of crops. 2.3.6.2 In support of our claim, we wish to state that in the decision by the Amritsar Tribunal in case of DCIT VS Max India Ltd (105 TTJ 1002), it was held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for- improvement in product specifications of BOPP films and to develop new varieties of BOPP films already manufactured by it, not being related to setting up of a new unit or expansion of the existing unit, is allowable as revenue expenditure. 2.36.3 Even in the case of Escorts Ltd.…

Bayer Crop Science Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 7818/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

…ature and hence not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. Before learned DRP, assessee relied on following case laws in order to contend that the product trial expenses are revenue in nature.  ACIT Vs. Medicamen Biotech (1SOT 347) (Del)  DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (105 TTJ 1002)(Asr)  Escorts Ltd. Vs. ACIT (104 ITD 427)(Del)  CIT Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (182 ITR 62) The assessee also contended that it has incurred expenses towards making payment to approved scientific research associations for conducting test of the product manufactured by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee clai…

M/S. Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd vs. The Jt CIT S.R.19

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2214/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43D

…does not have any enduring benefit and, therefore, should be treated as revenue expenditure. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Escorts Auto Components Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 11 (P&G); ii) DCIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2006] 105 TTJ 1002; iii) M/s. Cisco Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.431/Bang./2010, dated 28.4.2011; iv) CIT v/s ACL Wireless Ltd. [2013] 361 ITR 210 (Del.); v) Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthercare Ltd., 112 TTJ 94 (Chd.); vi) Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd., 74 ITD 327 (Chd.); vii) Rediff.com India Ltd., 141 TTJ 679 (Mum.). 55. Further, the learned Authorised…

Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. CIT (105 TTJ 1002) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax