Siemens Ltd. v. CIT

142 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#19114 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Siemens Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…3] 36 taxmann.com 88 (Mum. Trib.)/59 SOT 302 ix. ITO v. Midas Touch Exports: [2005] 1 SOT 553 (Mum. Trib.) x. DDIT v. Samsung Engg Co. Ltd.: [2011] 43 SOT 38 (Mum.) (URO) xi. SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2014] : 32 ITR(T) 220 Mitsu Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT: 142 ITD 157(Ahd.) xii. 32. He further submitted in following decisions it has been held that interest income earned on delayed or overdue payment from customers is assessable as profits and gains from business for computing deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act: i. CIT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons.: 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Jindal Polyester And Steel…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…3] 36 taxmann.com 88 (Mum. Trib.)/59 SOT 302 ix. ITO v. Midas Touch Exports: [2005] 1 SOT 553 (Mum. Trib.) x. DDIT v. Samsung Engg Co. Ltd.: [2011] 43 SOT 38 (Mum.) (URO) xi. SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2014] : 32 ITR(T) 220 Mitsu Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT: 142 ITD 157(Ahd.) xii. 32. He further submitted in following decisions it has been held that interest income earned on delayed or overdue payment from customers is assessable as profits and gains from business for computing deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act: i. CIT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons.: 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Jindal Polyester And Steel…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…3] 36 taxmann.com 88 (Mum. Trib.)/59 SOT 302 ix. ITO v. Midas Touch Exports: [2005] 1 SOT 553 (Mum. Trib.) x. DDIT v. Samsung Engg Co. Ltd.: [2011] 43 SOT 38 (Mum.) (URO) xi. SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT: [2014] : 32 ITR(T) 220 Mitsu Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT: 142 ITD 157(Ahd.) xii. 32. He further submitted in following decisions it has been held that interest income earned on delayed or overdue payment from customers is assessable as profits and gains from business for computing deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act: i. CIT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons.: 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Jindal Polyester And Steel…

Cooper Standard Automative India Private Limited, Chengalput vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.R.Duraipandian, JCITFor Respondent: 21.02.2017
Section 195Section 234BSection 40

…en by the recipient58 or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Salaries".] 15.2 The expression fee for technical services is considered in the case of Siemens Ltd. vs. CIT(A) by the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai, ‘L’ Bench in 142 ITD 1 (Mumbai) as under: 13. From the above, it is seen that the expression “fees for technical services” has been given as consideration for rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services. No other definition as such of the term technical services in the Act has been given. The word “technical” as appearing in Explanation 2 is preceded ‘by the…

Siemens Ltd. v. CIT (142 ITD 1) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax