← All Phrases

“Section 35(1)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(1)(vi)3 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1)(vi) is CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (142 ITR 493), cited in 95 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)(vi)

CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.
142 ITR 493 · 1983 · High Court
95
citing judgments

Pure reimbursement of expenditure does not constitute income in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services, therefore eliminating the obligation to deduct tax at source.

CIT v. IBM India Ltd.
357 ITR 88 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Expenditure on application software, which enhances business efficiency and requires a computer system to function, constitutes revenue expenditure rather than acquisition of a capital asset, even if it provides an enduring benefit.

Judgments citing Section 35(1)(vi)

Maini Materials Movement Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1069/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas K.P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chinmay Anand Jain, JCIT (DR)
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 35(1)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi vs. Nidhi Builders (International) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3950/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5386/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH