Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 April, 2018

M/S Soktas Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret As, ... vs Acit,International Taxation ... on 22 December, 2022

14. At this stage, we propose to deal with the decisions cited before us. In case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, though, the issue was whether a particular expenditure was revenue or capital in nature, however, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, while dealing with the issue, whether a particular trademark has been licensed or assigned, has observed as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gmr Airport Developers Limited, ... vs Ito, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad on 29 June, 2018

In the above referred case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd., Vs. CIT [92 taxmann.com 368] (Delhi), the Hon'ble Court has considered two types of agreements entered by assessee, wherein on certain use of trademarks, assessee paid annual license fee on the basis of turnover and also by way of supplementary agreement paid a lumpsum amount for use of the trademark for a ten year period without any annual fee. In that context, the issue was about Rs. 1 Crore lumpsum amount paid for a period of ten years. Analyzing that agreement and the case law, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the amount of Rs. 1 Crore lumpsum payment, without any further charges, is a revenue expenditure. However, in this case, the facts are slightly different. Assessee has paid a lumpsum amount at the beginning for the use of its trade license and also further payment of annual fee for continuous use of license.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eli Lilly And Company India Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, Circel-1(1), Gurgaon on 14 October, 2019

Ld. DR distinguished the judgement in Hilton Roulands Ltd (supra) stating that it was a case where it was held that under a license agreement between the assessee and HRL, assessee was granted exclusive right to use trade Mark "Hilton" for 10 years against the running royalty on sale as well as one-time royalty of Rs.1 crore, since Mark "Hilton" did not belong to the assessee and benefit of use of trade Mark had inured to licensor, payment of Rs.1 crore ought to be treated as Revenue expenditure and such facts are totally different from the case on hand since the question of taxability of only trademark rights on royalty were involved in such case but not in the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bigfoot Retail Solution Pvt Ltd, New ... vs Acit Circle 5(1), New Delhi on 18 July, 2022

(1) Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 27 ITR 34 (SC) (2) Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) (3) Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi) (4) CIT vs. J K Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 371 (Delhi) (5) ACIT vs. M/s. GE Capital Business Process Management Services 64 taxmann.com 156 (Delhi ITAT) 8 ITA No. 3161/Del/19 6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance observing that since the software was an integral and essential part of computer, the expenditure on software services was rightly treated as capital expenditure. He mentioned the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Maruti Udyog 92 ITD 119 (Del).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jcit(Osd) Corporate Circle 5 (1), , ... vs Regen Powertech Private Limited, ... on 15 July, 2022

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. License fee were paid to the licensors towards use of technical knowhow for manufacturing wind energy generators. From the perusal of clauses of the technical collaboration agreement entered by the appellant and M/s Vensys AG, Germany and Wind Direct GmbH, Germany, it is clear that appellant was granted non exclusive nor transferable right to use the technical knowhow for the period of twenty years and the appellant cannot use the technical knowhow in event of termination of the agreement or on the expiry of period of twenty years. In the background of this fact, we need to decide the issue whether the expenditure of license fee is capital or revenue in nature. Fundamental test to determine whether the technical knowhow has been licensed or assigned is to see whether licensor had retained any rights in the technical knowhow. If the rights are retained by the licensor then it is a case 16 I.T.A. No. 476 /Chny/20 & I.T.A. No. 570/Chny/21 of assignment. Therefore license is nothing but right to use the technical knowhow which can be revoked any time. Recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd vs. CIT, 412 ITR 436, after analyzing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs CIBA of India Ltd, 69 ITR 692, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 124 ITR T and Alembic Chemical works ltd vs CIT, 177 ITR 377 had held that license is only mere right to use the technical knowhow or trade mark. From the perusal of the license agreement, it is clear that appellant is conferred only right to use technical knowhow. The ownership always lies with licensor and the assessee had already set up the business. The technical knowhow is not used for the purpose of setting up the plant for manufacturer of wind energy generator.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commisisoner Of Income Tax Delhi vs Sunil Lamba on 20 March, 2019

23. This Court in Hilton Roulunds Limited v. CIT (2018) 255 Taxman 209 (Del) held that "an exclusive right to use, to the exclusion of the owner, though termed as license, could be a transfer of title in the mark." Any amount received for such transfer could not be said to be a revenue receipt. Likewise the non-compete fee received from BBLIL was in the nature of a ITA No.465/2003 Page 9 of 12 capital receipt. This resulted in sterilization of the profit making apparatus of the Assessee. Such payment has been held by the Supreme Court in Guffic Chem (P.)
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 Next