L&T DEMAG Plastics Machinery (P) Ltd. v. ITO

123 ITD 391Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18873 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing L&T DEMAG Plastics Machinery (P) Ltd. v. ITO

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Sailee V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 145A

…ance on the following judicial precedents in support of its contentions: Cyanamid Agro v. ACIT (31 SOT 286) [(page 1029 of Volume 2 (part IV)]; DCIT v. Beck India (26 SOT 141) [(page 1045 of Volume 2 (part IV)]; L&T Demag Plastics Machinery P. Ltd. v. ITO (123 ITD 391) [(page 1053 of Volume 2 (part IV)] vii. Based on the foregoing, the assessee submits that no addition ofRs.3,58,02,147 on account of CENVAT ought to have been made to the total income of the assessee. viii. The assesse further submitted that for the AY 2006-07, the issue was not pressed before the Hon'ble Tribunal and hence the case was not…

M/S. South Shourne Corporation (India), Baroda vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-2(2), Baroda

ITA 269/AHD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.269/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 M/S South Shourne Corporation(India) Acit, 931, Gidc Estate, Circle-2(2), V Makarpura, Baroda. S. Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.DR
Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 68

…e view that the expenditure incurred on the registration of the trademark cannot be treated as revenue in nature. In this connection, we place our reliance on the order of Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in case of L&T Demag plastic machinery (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 123 ITD 391 wherein it was held as under: “Clauses of the agreement between the assessee and L&T clearly showed that the assessee-company was getting a right to use trademark of L&T for the purpose of preparing a combined trademark of L&T and DET. The assessee was also entitled to the use of such combined trademark in India. In pursuance of that agreement, A…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 680/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…eved, the department is in appeal before us. 35. ITA No.680 & 660/Bang/2014 Page 20 of 26 36. The ld. DR supported the order of the AO and relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L&T DEMAG Plastics Machinery (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 123 ITD 391 (Mum). 37. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of CIT(Appeals) and relied on the following decisions:- CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. 20 ITR 475 (SC) CIT v. Panacea Biotech Ltd., Delhi HC judgment dated 17.1.2012 in ITA No.22 & 24/2012. CIT v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd. 349 ITR 65 (Kar) CIT v. IBM India Ltd. 35…

Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…eved, the department is in appeal before us. 35. ITA No.680 & 660/Bang/2014 Page 20 of 26 36. The ld. DR supported the order of the AO and relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L&T DEMAG Plastics Machinery (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 123 ITD 391 (Mum). 37. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of CIT(Appeals) and relied on the following decisions:- CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. 20 ITR 475 (SC) CIT v. Panacea Biotech Ltd., Delhi HC judgment dated 17.1.2012 in ITA No.22 & 24/2012. CIT v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd. 349 ITR 65 (Kar) CIT v. IBM India Ltd. 35…