Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT

123 ITR 773High Court1980#7263 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT

GRUNER INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…aus Precision Forgings Ltd. (ITANo.260/Del/2010) 3. CIT v. Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd. (ITA No 398/2012) 4. Climate Systems India Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 113(Delhi) 5. CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 464 (MP) 6. Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 773 (A&P) 7. Ekl Appliances (2012-TII-01-HC-DEL-TP) 8. Ericson India Pot. Ltd. v. DCIT (2012-11-48-ITAT-Del-TP) ITA No.4456/Del/2012 24. In 'Son Okegawa Precision Forgings Ltd. (supra), it has been held that since the royalty paid by the Indian company was 3% of net sales and it falls within the range of @ 8% on export sales and 5% on domestic sal…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…bmission made earlier that the appellant was a mere licensee, entitled to use the technical know-how of SMC. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- * CIT vs Avery India Ltd. 207 ITR 813 (Cal.); * Praga Tools Ltd. vs CIT 123 ITR 773 (FB)(AP); * CIT vs Tata Engineering Ltd. 1123 ITR 538 (Bom); * Trivenii Engineering Works Ltd. vs CIT 136 ITR 340 (Del.); * ACIT vs SHama Engine Valves Ltd. 138 ITR 216 (Del.); * CIT vs J.K.Synthetics Ltd. 176 Taxman 355 (Del.) and other case laws. 47.1. Therefore, he prayed that the AO should be directed to allow the entire royalty payment as al…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…bmission made earlier that the appellant was a mere licensee, entitled to use the technical know-how of SMC. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- * CIT vs Avery India Ltd. 207 ITR 813 (Cal.); * Praga Tools Ltd. vs CIT 123 ITR 773 (FB)(AP); * CIT vs Tata Engineering Ltd. 1123 ITR 538 (Bom); * Trivenii Engineering Works Ltd. vs CIT 136 ITR 340 (Del.); * ACIT vs SHama Engine Valves Ltd. 138 ITR 216 (Del.); * CIT vs J.K.Synthetics Ltd. 176 Taxman 355 (Del.) and other case laws. 47.1. Therefore, he prayed that the AO should be directed to allow the entire royalty payment as al…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SOFT TECH ENGINEERS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2581/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2581/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Soft Tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Vs Unit-5A, The Pentagon, Tax, Shahu College Road, Near Satara Circle-6, Pune. Road, Telephone Exchange, Pune – 411009. Pan: Aaccs 3857 L Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 06/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 30.05.2017 ,Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Amount Of Rs.3,13,93,146/- Being Claim For Professional Fees & Contracting Expenses & Rs.61,03,239/- Being Managerial Expenses Relating To Software Development While The Same Should Be Capitalized & Not To Be Allowed As Revenue Expenses.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…of an asset or a right of a permanent character. the possession of which is a condition of the carrying on of the business, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure.” Unquote. In the case of Parag Tools Ltd vs CIT Hon’ble AP High Court FB (1980)123 ITR 773 held , Quote “ Where the expenditure has a direct nexus, connection or relation to the carrying on of or conducting the business of the assessee, it must be regarded as an integral part of the profit-making process. In such a case, it must be held to be a revenue expenditure. Where the purpose and object of the expenditure is to acquire an asset…