Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Aquapump Industries on 14 July, 1995

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jasubhai Business Service (P) Ltd. on 29 July, 2005

11. The Authorised Representative also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Aquapump Industries (1996) 132 CTR (Mad) 506 : (1996) 218 ITR 427 (Mad). In this case, the Court mainly dealt with the transfer of technical know-how for a period of 5 years and payment of royalties consideration thereof and the Court held that the expenditure was revenue in nature. However, in the instant case, there is no such issue of transfer of technical know-how and payment of royalty, hence the ratio of the above-mentioned case has no bearing on the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sayaji Industries Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 September, 1999

In the case of CIT vs. Aquapump Industries (1996) 218 ITR 427 (Mad), Madras High Court held that the technical know-how supplied to the assessee for better running its business, lumpsum payment made for that is allowable as revenue expenditure, and also in the case of CIT vs. Simpson & Co. Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 83 (Mad) similar view has been taken.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Southern Pressings (P.) Ltd. on 9 January, 1998

Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 177 ITR 377 and Jonas Woodhead and Sons' case [1997] 224 1TR 342 and the decision of this court in Aquapump Industries' case [1996] 218 ITR 427, all cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment made under the collaboration agreement should be allowed as revenue expenditure.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1