Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.86 seconds)
Documents citing Jt. Cit vs Groz Backert Asia Ltd. on 28 August, 2002

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs Assessee on 25 June, 2015

The stand taken by the assessee that the impugned expenditure is revenue expenditure placing reliance on High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Groz Asia Ltd. reported in 214 Taxman 205 is not acceptable to the CIT(A) as the decision rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High court was on the different set of facts and the issue was not under consideration of sec.32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3 of the IT Act. The issue under consideration is whether right of access is a intangible asset and whether such right was acquired by the assessee for use of 10 years for a specified consideration in view of the specific provision in the law u/s 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3 of the IT Act. In view of the specific facts the case, the CIT(A) observed that the nature of expenditure of C.58 crores incurred by the assessee is a 50 ITA Nos.512 & 513/Mds/2015 capital expenditure. Since the entire claim of expenditure is treated as incurred towards acquiring intangible asset and nature of expenditure is treated as capital expenditure, he observed that the question of disallowing the same u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise in this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Ltd., ... vs Addl.Cit-14(2) (Earlier Addl.Cit ,Rg. ... on 28 January, 2021

CIT, Range 14(2) 19 the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Patyala Vs Groz Beckert Asia Limited (2013) 351 ITR 196 (P&H) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT vs. Infosys Technologies (No.1)(2012) 349 ITR 582 (Kar). Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed the assessee‟s claim for deduction of the club membership fees of Rs.4,79,225/- as a revenue expenditure. Also, we concur with the observation of the CIT(A) that the rejection of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of club membership expenses by the A.O, de hors any verification on his part that as to whether or not the said expenditure was incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively in the course of its business, also, cannot be sustained. The Ground of appeal No. 4 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Asstt. Cit vs Ram Sahai Wool Combers (P) Ltd. on 25 June, 2004

In support of his contention, learned authorised representative relied on order of the Tribunal in the case of Jt. CIT v. Groz Backert Asia Ltd. reported in (2003) 86 ITD 291 (Chd), wherein it was held that where the assessee had filed the balance sheet and other documents which were accepted by the assessing officer in assessment under section 143(3) and so this reopening was a case of mere change of opinion.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited,New ... vs Dcit, Coimbatore on 29 January, 2025

6.2 The Ld. AR before us has submitted that the issue is covered in assessee's favour by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Groz Beckert Asis Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 196 (P & H) and the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ingersoll-Rand India Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 427 ITR 158 (Kar.). The Ld. AR has submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has considered ITA No.587/Chny/2017 :- 10 -:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1