Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-I vs Glaxo Laboratories (India) P. Ltd. on 2 November, 1977

Dcit 10(1), Mumbai vs Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai on 25 January, 2017

9. On appraisal of the said order it came into the notice that the CIT(A) has dealt both the transactions separately, in view of the law mentioned above. The first transaction was in connection with the payment of Rs.12,60,00,000/- on account of termination of agreement with SIPL. The Assessing Officer dealt the said transaction as capital in nature. The appellant entered into an agreement with SIPL for procuring advertisement from clients. Dispute arose, therefore, the said agreement was terminated in view of the termination. The appellant company paid an amount of Rs.12,60,00,000/- as compensation. It is to be decided what should be nature of this kind 14 ITA No.3532/M/13 & C.O.143/M/14 A.Y. 2008-09 of payments. The CIT(A) dealt the matter in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Glaxo Laboratories India P. Ltd. 197 ITR 110 wherein such type of transaction was held to be business expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ti Diamond Chain Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 January, 2005

7. As far as the decision of Bombay High Court in C.I.T. v. GLAXO LABORATORIES (INDIA) P.LTD. (114 ITR 110) is concerned, the decision has no application as in the case before the Bombay High Court, the amount was not paid for the acquisition of any infrastructure, but it was a case of termination of distribution agency, and we find that the facts are entirely different from the case of the assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - N V Balasubramanian - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Motor Industries Co. Ltd. on 9 January, 1996

To the same effect is the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) (P) Ltd. (1978) 114 ITR 110 (Bom) where on the termination of the agency of the agent the distribution work was to be undertaken by the assessee-company itself the Court held that any payment made to operate within the area which was originally serviced by the agent for a proper transition from distribution originally made by the agent to direct distribution to be made by the assessee, was justified by commercial expediency and was, therefore, a revenue expenditure. It was held that the object behind making such a payment was to see that the work of direct distribution of the products of the assessee-company went on without let or hindrance on the part of the agent who had earlier worked in the same field.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1