Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT

41 Taxmann.com 120High Court2014#1991 most cited

What is Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A non-compete fee paid as part of a business acquisition or transaction constitutes an intangible asset, eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 32(1)(ii) · Section 32(1) · non-compete fee · depreciation on non-compete fee · intangible asset · business transfer agreement · commercial rights · slump sale · transferee company

Also reported as

264 CTR 187222 Taxmann 209

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)Section 35(2AB)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on non-compete feenon-compete feesection 36(i)(iii)section 36(i)business transfer agreementdepreciation on softwaresection 32(1)(ii)commercial rightsdepreciation on goodwilltransferee companyslump salesection 32(1)

Judgments citing Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S Rentokil India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is

ITA 444/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 444 & 445/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2014-15 M/S. Rentokil India Private Liited. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 105, 4Th Floor, Sreela Terrace, Vs. Corporate Circle – 5(1), 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. 121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aadcr 7629E] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.P Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 32(1)

…Transfer Agreement, no amount was quantified for the same. It was a further submission that even assuming the amount was non-compete fee still in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., reported in 264 CTR 187, non-compete fee has been held to be a right as an intangible asset entitled to depreciation u/s.32. It was a further submission that neither the term customer list nor non- compete fee was defined in Sec.32. It was a submission that Sec.92B(2)(ii)(f) however defined intangible asset to include the customer list and sub-clause (g) to include non-…

DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imcd Group B.V. India Branch, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1544/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Imcd Group B.V. India Tax (It)-2(2)(1), Room No. 136, Branch, C/O Vatsaraj & Co., बिधम/ 1St Floor Scindia House, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. N.M. Road, Mumbai-400 038 “C” Block, 65 Tamarind Lane Fort, Mumbai-400 023 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabci8417R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Samuel Darse, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghunathan Sampath. A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…of the aforesaid payment of Rs. 10,90,49,099/- made by the assessee was however available. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the DRP relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Pentasoft Technology Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 264 CTR 187 (Mad) and that of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Ingersoll Rand International Ind Ltd.(2014) (48 taxmann.com 349), concluded that the assessee was entitled P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1544/Mum/2016 AY. 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Vs. M/s IMCD Group BV India to depreciation in respect of the non-compete fees paid by it.…

Acg Pampac Machines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 7765/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7765/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Acg Pampac Machines Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम/ 1001, Dalamal House, 10Th Floor Central Circle-42 Nariman Point Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacp-4134-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Manish Shah, Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Manish Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…l as well as Hon’ble 6 ACG Pampac Machines Private Limited Assessment Year-2010-11 High Courts in this regard. The decisions by Hon’ble High Courts which stood in assessee’s favor could be tabulated in the following manner:- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. [41 Taxmann.com 120 Madras High Court] (ii) Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd. [48 Taxmann.com 349 Karnataka High Court] Per Contra, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sharp Business System Vs CIT [2012 254 CTR 233] has taken contrary decision. No decision of our jurisdictional High Court has been brought on record. It is noted that both the decisions rendered…

Alstom T&D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2090/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2079/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Areva T & D India Limited, Income Tax, v. (Now Alstom India T & D India Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Ltd.), Chennai - 600 101. 19/1, IOC Building, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 043. PAN : AAACG 2115 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपी…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Areva T & D India Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2079/CHNY/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी.जॉज", लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2079/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Areva T & D India Limited, Income Tax, v. (Now Alstom India T & D India Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Ltd.), Chennai - 600 101. 19/1, IOC Building, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 043. PAN : AAACG 2115 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपी…

Areva T & D Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या%यक सद"य के सम& BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.561/Mds/2011 %नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s.Areva T&D India Ltd., Tax, FSSC Building, Large Taxpayer Unit, No.19/1, GST Road, Chennai-600 101. Pallavaram, Chennai-600 043 [PAN: AAACG 2115 R ] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.668/Mds/2011 %नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 20…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Areva T & D India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 561/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या%यक सद"य के सम& BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.561/Mds/2011 %नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s.Areva T&D India Ltd., Tax, FSSC Building, Large Taxpayer Unit, No.19/1, GST Road, Chennai-600 101. Pallavaram, Chennai-600 043 [PAN: AAACG 2115 R ] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.668/Mds/2011 %नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 20…

Rentokil India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2660/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2660/Mds/2016 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 32Section 32(1)Section 92BSection 92B(2)(ii)

…ansfer Agreement, no amount was quantified for the same. It was a further submission that even assuming the amount was non-compete fee still in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., reported in 264 CTR 187, non-compete fee has been held to be a right as an intangible asset entitled to depreciation u/s.32. It was a further submission that neither the term customer list nor non-compete fee was defined in Sec.32. It was a submission that Sec.92B(2)(ii)(f) however defined intangible asset to include the customer list and sub-clause (g) to include non…

Compass Group (India) Support Services Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2924/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2064 & 2924/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Nataraja, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2064 & 2924/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Compass Group (India) Support Services Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as ‘Epicurean Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) The Assistant Commissioner of (1) H M Center, 1st floor, v. Income Tax, No.29, Nungambakkam High Road, Circle – 1(3), Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. (2) 402, 4th…

Compass Group (India) Support Services P.Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2064/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2064 & 2924/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Nataraja, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2064 & 2924/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Compass Group (India) Support Services Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as ‘Epicurean Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) The Assistant Commissioner of (1) H M Center, 1st floor, v. Income Tax, No.29, Nungambakkam High Road, Circle – 1(3), Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. (2) 402, 4th…

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 821/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 821/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah and Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A
Section 144C

…s per ld. Authorised Representative amount payable to Shri. K. Raghavendra Rao was 10 million USD and it was purely a revenue outgo. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT 264 CTR 187. 14. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that these were all part of a single understanding that assessee had with M/s. Orchid India for transferring their injectable drug division to the assessee. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Ld. Assessing Officer had treated non…

Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 157/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Piramal Glass Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As ‘Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.’) Income Tax 7(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No. 669A, 6Th Floor Piramal Tower Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Aaykar Bahwan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road, Churchgate Mumbai 400013 Mumbai 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-0093-R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 156Section 92C

…n earlier years. Even the claim of 25% depreciation on non-compete fees paid by him was also not allowed by Tribunal in AY 1999- 2000. But thereafter, Tribunal in AY 2001-02, relying upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. V DCIT 222 Taxmann 209 & Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Ingersoll Rand International Ltd. 227 Taxmann 176 and Mumbai Tribunal in Shreya Life Science ITA No. 7071/Mum/2010, allowed the claim of 25% depreciation on non- compete fees being ‘intangible assets’. Further, the issue was again settled in favor of assessee by Tribunal in AY 2006-2007. The Ld. DR fairly conc…

Gujarat Glass P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 8360/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘के’ म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री राजेंद्र, ऱेखा सदस्य एवुं श्री शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA no. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 PAN – AABCG0093R v/s Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shr…

Marico Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 9(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8858/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./8858/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Marico Ltd. ACIT-6(3), Range-9(2) Rang Sharda, K.C. Marg, Bandra (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 050. Mumbai-400 020. PAN: AAACM 7493 G (अपीलाथ"…

M/S. Gujarat Glass Ltd vs. The Addl CIT RG 6(3)

In the result, appeals are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 9645/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A.TharFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.9645/Mum/2004 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2001-2002) PIRAMAL GLASS LTD.(Formerly Vs. ADCIT, Range-6(3), known as Gujarat Glass Private Mumbai-400020 Limited), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABCG 0093 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.9498/Mum/2004 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2001-2002) DCIT, Range-6(3), Mumbai-…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Citadel Aurobindo Biotech Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Department in the ITA

ITA 469/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Rengaraj, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Venkatram, C.A
Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06) The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Citadel Aurobindo Bitotech Income Tax, Vs Ltd, Corporate Circle I (2), No.43, Main Road, Chennai 600 034. Velachery, Chennai 600 042. [PAN:AABCC 7824N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Citadel Aurobindo Biotech Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Department in the ITA

ITA 468/CHNY/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Rengaraj, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Venkatram, C.A
Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06) The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Citadel Aurobindo Bitotech Income Tax, Vs Ltd, Corporate Circle I (2), No.43, Main Road, Chennai 600 034. Velachery, Chennai 600 042. [PAN:AABCC 7824N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Citadel Aurobindo Biotech Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Department in the ITA

ITA 467/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Rengaraj, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Venkatram, C.A
Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.467, 468 & 469/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06) The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Citadel Aurobindo Bitotech Income Tax, Vs Ltd, Corporate Circle I (2), No.43, Main Road, Chennai 600 034. Velachery, Chennai 600 042. [PAN:AABCC 7824N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…