Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. DCIT

81 TTJ 455Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#9894 most cited

What is Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Head office expenses allocated to units are not to be considered for computing income eligible for deduction under sections 80I, 80HH, 80M, and 80-O. Expenses directly connected with periods do not require allocation.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. DCIT · 81 TTJ 455 · head office expenses · allocation of expenses · section 80I · section 80HH · section 80M · section 80-O · deduction eligible income

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 43b(a)interest on refundazadi bachao andolansection 80hsection 80hhcsection 80hhroyalty incomesection 90section 43bsection 254revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…to the units are not to be taken into consideration for computing the income of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 801 and also u/s 8OHH. Similarly we find the Bangalore bench of the ITAT in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 81 TTJ 455 has held that there is no need for allocation of any expenses when the expenses are directly connected with periods. Following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity for allocating the head office expenses to the units…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…to the units are not to be taken into consideration for computing the income of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 801 and also u/s 8OHH. Similarly we find the Bangalore bench of the ITAT in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 81 TTJ 455 has held that there is no need for allocation of any expenses when the expenses are directly connected with periods. Following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity for allocating the head office expenses to the units…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…to the units are not to be taken into consideration for computing the income of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 801 and also u/s 8OHH. Similarly we find the Bangalore bench of the ITAT in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 81 TTJ 455 has held that there is no need for allocation of any expenses when the expenses are directly connected with periods. Following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity for allocating the head office expenses to the units…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…to the units are not to be taken into consideration for computing the income of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 801 and also u/s 8OHH. Similarly we find the Bangalore bench of the ITAT in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 81 TTJ 455 has held that there is no need for allocation of any expenses when the expenses are directly connected with periods. Following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity for allocating the head office expenses to the units…

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1723/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri S.P.ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…porate common expenditure needs is to be ailocated to all the units under same management. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. The authorized representative relied on the judgement of Bangalore Bench in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. (81 TTJ 455). On the other hand, the learned departmental representative relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd., Vs. DCiT 30 SOT 474 and submitted that the turnover shall be the basis for allocating the overhead expenses. She Submitted that all expenses of the business, whether direct or indirect project specific or common expens…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…to the units are not to be taken into consideration for computing the income of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 801 and also u/s 8OHH. Similarly we find the Bangalore bench of the ITAT in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 81 TTJ 455 has held that there is no need for allocation of any expenses when the expenses are directly connected with periods. Following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity for allocating the head office expenses to the units…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gmm Pfaoulder Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2014/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2014/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Parin Shah, A.R

…L Account. The AO disallowed warranty expenses for three months on proportionate basis an pertaining to the subsequent year. The ld. CTT(A) allowed the entire claim following the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Wipro Ge Medical System Lid. vs. DCIT 81 TTJ 455. …….. 79. We have heard the parties. The assessee has to submit present value of warranty expenses. It has to be properly ascertained and discounted on accrual basis. A proper ITA No. 2014/Ahd/16 [DCIT vs. GMM Pfaulder Ltd.] A.Y. 2005-06 - 4 - calculation of this issue will he submitted to the AO who will examine the same and allow the claim as…

Biocon Limtied, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 907/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 35Section 92Section 92C

…red in law and on facts in disregarding the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) (245 ITR 428) (SC) and the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd v DCIT (81 TTJ 455) wherein it was held that a liability is not contingent, if the liability is certain to be incurred; and the liability is capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty even though the quantification may not be possible. 9. The Ld CIT has erred in facts in disregarding that in the Appellants case, it was certain that there would be an exchan…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/912/2008HC Karnataka07 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

…gh franchises. However, learned counsel appearing for the assessee would contend that Appellate Commissioner deleted the allocation of expenses made by the Assessing Officer based on the order of ITAT in the very same assessee’s case reported in 81 TTJ 455 and the decision of the Apex Court in Indo Nipan 7 Limited’s case (261 ITR 775). It is noticed that over 5.6% of the sales is made through franchises, however, the assessee adopted sales as basis for allocation. The sale made through the franchises stands on a different footing than the sale made directly by the assessee comp…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/890/2008HC Karnataka07 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

…gh franchises. However, learned counsel appearing for the assessee would contend that Appellate Commissioner deleted the allocation of expenses made by the Assessing Officer based on the order of ITAT in the very same assessee’s case reported in 81 TTJ 455 and the decision of the Apex Court in Indo Nipan 7 Limited’s case (261 ITR 775). It is noticed that over 5.6% of the sales is made through franchises, however, the assessee adopted sales as basis for allocation. The sale made through the franchises stands on a different footing than the sale made directly by the assessee comp…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA/902/2008HC Karnataka19 Jan 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…through franchises. However, learned counsel appearing for the assessee would contend that Appellate Commissioner deleted the allocation of expenses made by the Assessing Officer based on the order of ITAT in the very same assessee’s case reported in 81 TTJ 455 and the decision of the Apex Court in Indo Nipan Limited’s case (261 ITR 775). It is noticed that over 5.6% of the sales is made through 13 franchises, however, the assessee adopted sales as basis for allocation. The sale made through the franchises stands on a different footing than the sale made directly by the assessee company. In…

Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. v. DCIT (81 TTJ 455) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax