Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax.,New Delhi vs M/S Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ... on 4 August, 2014

Ht Media Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 18 March, 2015

25. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) accords with the judgment dated 27.4.2010 of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solus Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in which it has been held that the training expenses are to be allowed as revenue expenses. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the ld. CIT(A). This ground fails.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

B.Dhanasekaran, Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 6 November, 2015

7.4 In so far as the meaning of the word "works contract" is concerned, the ld. AR placed reliance on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2010] 324 ITR 199/ 191 Taxman 455(Bom.) wherein held that in a works contract, the contractee would provide the material and all other requirements in the process of manufacture/production. The contractor merely carries on the work with the material supplied by the contractee and the knowledge supplied by the contractee. Further, in a works contract, the risk is undertaken by the contractee and in case of development contract, the contractor undertakes the risks involved. In the case of the assessee, it was allotted a premises and the possession :- 17 -: I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 and 360/Mds/2015 of the premises was handed over to the assessee. It was asked by the government to develop the said area into an infrastructure facility. All the activities necessary in the process of development and the losses suffered in the process, the material to be used including the expertise shall be of the assessee. The maintenance of the existing facility during the period of development also shall be of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor. He relied on the Circular No. 4 of 2010 dated 18-05-2010, which is after introduction of the explanation by the Finance Act, 2009, for the proposition that widening of existing road is an infrastructure facility and any enterprise carrying on the activity of widening of an existing road would be eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. 7.5 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that as per Circular No.4/2010, dated 18.5.2010 wherein the Central Board of Direct Taxes has clarified that widening of existing roads constitutes creation of new infrastructure facility for the purposes of section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fives Stein India Projects Pvt Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 November, 2015

As held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Glenmark's case (supra), the amendment in section 194C which lays down that purchase of goods made as per the specifications of buyer will not attract, the provisions of section 194C is only clarificatory in nature and will hold filed for the earlier years as well. There is no contrary decision by the Hon'ble ITA No.91/Kol/2011-C-AM M/s. Fives Stein (I) Projects P.Ltd 11 jurisdictional High Court, or, for that purpose by any other High Court. The esteemed views of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, therefore, bind us as well.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhansali Trading Company, Jaipur vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 July, 2016

He further submitted that the assessee did not claim any deduction u/s 10B in A.Y. 2001-02. It was clearly shown in the I.T. Computation of Income and similarly in the Audit Report in Form No. 56G no deduction was claimed. In the A.Y. 2001-02 there was trail production. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nestar Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has held that Trial production is different from commercial production. Further held that merely because same closing stock was shown in A.Y. 2008-09 would not lead 14 ITA 784/JP/2014_ DCIT Vs. M/s Bhansali Trading Company to the conclusion that there was commercial production as well. Initial assessment year for the purpose of Sec. 80IA is the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the commercial production was started i.e. A.Y. 1999-2000 and not A.Y. 1998-99 in which there was a trial production. As per provisions contained in sub sec(8) of 10B the assessee has been given option for not applying the provision of this section for any relevant assessment year. The assessee vide letter dated 18/12/2013 to the AO in reply to the show cause for disallowing the claim u/s 10B filed detailed submissions. However, the AO intentionally did not reproduce the letter as a whole leaving three lines of the para.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ciena India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 April, 2015

19.2. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) accords with the judgment dated 27.4.2010 of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Solus Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in which it has been held that the training expenses are to be allowed as revenue expenses. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the ld. CIT(A). This ground fails.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1