Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT

232 ITR 359Supreme Court of India1998#1123 most cited

What is Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure on technical aid fees for factory setup and rights to sell products under a collaboration agreement is capital in nature, not revenue, as it provides an enduring benefit.

99

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT · 232 ITR 359 · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · technical aid fees · royalty · enduring benefit · collaboration agreement · section 37(1) · section 35ABB

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 194HSection 35ABBSection 40(a)(ia)Section 144BSection 154 of the Income Tax ActSection 260A

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbsection 35abtest of enduring benefitsection 35aenduring benefitprohibited by lawdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 194hintangible assetssection 35revenue expenditurecapital expenditure

Judgments citing Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1617/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…law in disallowing a sum of Rs. 6,87,14,859 (net of depreciation), being 25% of the expenditure on royalty of Rs. 36,64,79,248 paid to various parties, as capital expenditure relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd.: 232 ITR 359. 8. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing a sum of Rs.2,57,60,916 invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), holding the same to be expenses attributable towards investments made for earning of exempt dividend income, though, the appellant had not earn…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2395/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…law in disallowing a sum of Rs. 6,87,14,859 (net of depreciation), being 25% of the expenditure on royalty of Rs. 36,64,79,248 paid to various parties, as capital expenditure relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd.: 232 ITR 359. 8. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing a sum of Rs.2,57,60,916 invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), holding the same to be expenses attributable towards investments made for earning of exempt dividend income, though, the appellant had not earn…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…law in disallowing a sum of Rs. 6,87,14,859 (net of depreciation), being 25% of the expenditure on royalty of Rs. 36,64,79,248 paid to various parties, as capital expenditure relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd.: 232 ITR 359. 8. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing a sum of Rs.2,57,60,916 invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), holding the same to be expenses attributable towards investments made for earning of exempt dividend income, though, the appellant had not earn…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…law in disallowing a sum of Rs. 6,87,14,859 (net of depreciation), being 25% of the expenditure on royalty of Rs. 36,64,79,248 paid to various parties, as capital expenditure relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd.: 232 ITR 359. 8. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing a sum of Rs.2,57,60,916 invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’), holding the same to be expenses attributable towards investments made for earning of exempt dividend income, though, the appellant had not earn…

Bellsonica Auto Components India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2210/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: “ 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT
Section 195Section 32(1)Section 40

…gy is mandate and business requirement in the competitive market of two/three wheelers.” 11. The facts of the assessee’s case are similar to these decisions. The ld. CIT(A) has relied on Supreme Court Decision in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd. vs. CIT, 232 ITR 359 is not applicable in the present case because in that case agreement was made for a period of five years and it was expressly stipulated that after expiry of agreement, themethod, production, procedure etc. would remain with the Indian assessee, whereas no such stipulation is made in the agreements made in the case before us so as to observe any…

Moser Baer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5268/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…ITA No. 5268/Del./2010 6 for the years earlier to AY 2002-03. A copy of the agreement under which royalty was being paid was provided to the Revenue. The only reason for reopening the assessment was that the decision in Southern Switchgears Ltd. v. CIT[1998] 232 ITR 359 (SC), which was rendered by the Supreme Court several years earlier on 11th December, 1997 was not noticed by the A.O. at the time of finalization of assessment at the first instance on 31st January, 2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act. 17. In light of the legal position after the amendment to Section 147 of the Act, as explained in Kelvinator I…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3613/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…addition to supplying technical knowhow, also rendered valuable services in setting up the factory itself and the agreement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 25% of the royalty was a capital expenditure. In Southern Switchgear Ltd. VS. CIT and Anr. (1998) 232 ITR 359 (SC), the foreign company provided technical knowhow and other services to the assessee company. The technical assistance also contemplated establishment of a factory. On the expiry of agreement after 5 years, the assessee could use method of production, procedure etc. In the backdrop of these facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the paymen…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3612/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…addition to supplying technical knowhow, also rendered valuable services in setting up the factory itself and the agreement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 25% of the royalty was a capital expenditure. In Southern Switchgear Ltd. VS. CIT and Anr. (1998) 232 ITR 359 (SC), the foreign company provided technical knowhow and other services to the assessee company. The technical assistance also contemplated establishment of a factory. On the expiry of agreement after 5 years, the assessee could use method of production, procedure etc. In the backdrop of these facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the paymen…

Denso India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our

ITA 4788/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Denso India Limited, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, B-1/D-4,Ground Floor, Circle 10(1), vs Mohan Cooperative Industrial New Delhi. Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (PAN: AAACD4255F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. Shri Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 6.3.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This app…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ruskin Titus India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4337/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13 Acit, Circle 21(2) Ruskin Titus India Room No.199C Vs. (P) Ltd. 2Nd Floor C 434, 3Rd Floor Cr Bldg. Ip Estate Defence Colony New Delhi New Delhi 110 024 Pan: Aadcc 0463 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. Respondent By Smt. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, Ca Date Of Hearing 20/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 Order Per Beena A Pillai

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…f the net selling price of the licensed products under Article 6 of the agreement. While doing so this Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09 placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suthen land switchgear Ltd vs. CIT reported in 232 ITR 359. Similarly in the facts of present case, Ld.CIT(A) has observed that the transferee company was having complete lien on the technical know-how, assisting skills and other expertise as per Article 4 of the Agreement. 3.2. As the revenue has not been able to point out any factual material difference between the year under consideration as well as A…

Dcitcorporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Indian Additives Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1609/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. M. Viswanathan, CA

…was fixed lump sum and was payable for transfer of technology, the same should be treated as an intangibleasset and hence it was eligible for depreciation as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Switch Gear vs CIT reported in 232 ITR 359. The assessee submitted that the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for the ays 1999-00 to 2002-03 has held that the impugned expenditure is revenue in nature. The AO stated in the assessment order that the department has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the order of the ITAT. So as to keep the issue alive, the AO tre…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metzeler Automotive Profiles India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5898/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 79

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5898/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) DCIT, Circle 6 (1), vs. M/s. Metzeler Automotive Profiles New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 301 – 302, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACW0019N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.N. Mehta, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 01.11.2017 Date of Order : 10.11.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle…

John Crane Sealing Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 785/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ragunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: 19.06.2017
Section 143(3)

…the royalty was treated as capital expenditure, and the balance 75% as on revenue account (refer paras 6.1 to 6.6 of its order). The decision in Southern Switch Gear Ltd. (supra) stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Court in Southern Switch Gear Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 359 (Mad), cited by and relied upon by the Revenue before us. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in, adopting the said decision, clarifying that the AO’s decision in treating the entire royalty payment as capital expenditure would stand confined to only 25% thereof. Similarly, the decision of the ld. DRP, treating the entire amount as revenue, also…

DCIT, Chennai vs. John Crane Sealing Systems (India) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 621/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ragunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: 19.06.2017
Section 143(3)

…the royalty was treated as capital expenditure, and the balance 75% as on revenue account (refer paras 6.1 to 6.6 of its order). The decision in Southern Switch Gear Ltd. (supra) stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Court in Southern Switch Gear Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 359 (Mad), cited by and relied upon by the Revenue before us. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in, adopting the said decision, clarifying that the AO’s decision in treating the entire royalty payment as capital expenditure would stand confined to only 25% thereof. Similarly, the decision of the ld. DRP, treating the entire amount as revenue, also…

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2 vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan

ITTA/72/2017HC Telangana29 Jun 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

ACIT, Chennai vs. Ip Rings Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2022/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Respondent: Mr.R.Duraipandian, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1670/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/s.I.P.Rings Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of Arjey Apex Centre, Income Tax, No.24, College Road, Company Circle-II(3), Chennai-600 006. Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AAACI 0908 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2022/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Yea…

I.P.Rings Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Respondent: Mr.R.Duraipandian, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1670/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/s.I.P.Rings Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of Arjey Apex Centre, Income Tax, No.24, College Road, Company Circle-II(3), Chennai-600 006. Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AAACI 0908 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2022/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Yea…

Scci (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3574/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. K. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3487/Del/2009 (Assessment Year 2006-07) DCIT SCCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle- 7(1) 2/18, Hallye Road, Vs. Room no. 312, C. R. Building New Delhi. GIR/PAN: AAECS4285L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) And I.T.A No. 3574/Del/2009 (Assessment Year 2006-07) SCCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. ACIT 2/18, Hallye Road, Circle- 7(1) Vs. New Delhi. Room no. 312, C. R. Building GIR/PAN: AAECS4285L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Sh. A. K. Sharma, Sr. DR Assess…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Scci (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3487/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. K. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3487/Del/2009 (Assessment Year 2006-07) DCIT SCCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle- 7(1) 2/18, Hallye Road, Vs. Room no. 312, C. R. Building New Delhi. GIR/PAN: AAECS4285L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) And I.T.A No. 3574/Del/2009 (Assessment Year 2006-07) SCCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. ACIT 2/18, Hallye Road, Circle- 7(1) Vs. New Delhi. Room no. 312, C. R. Building GIR/PAN: AAECS4285L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Sh. A. K. Sharma, Sr. DR Assess…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…l Assistance Agreement. The assessee was asked to explain why part of the Royalty (and Technical fees) paid to M/s Honda Motors Co., Japan should not be disallowed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Southern Switch Gears Ltd. Vs. CTT 232 ITR 359 as in the past. The Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Madras High Court in the said case (" .,SL"), wherein part of the royalty and technical know paid to its foreign collaborator , as per Collaboration Agreement, to the extend of 25% was treated as Capital Expenditure. 2.2 At this juncture, it may be mentioned that the Hero Group en…