Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Agarwal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 July, 1978

Tata Robins Frazer Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 April, 1986

37. From the above, it will be seen that H.R. Int. could terminate the agreement within 30 days' notice and the clause enjoins obligation upon the assessee to return all documents whatsoever furnished to TRF and restrained upon TRF against divulging to any other person, firm or company any information whatsoever derived from H.R. Int. This clearly shows that there was no monopoly right conferred upon the assessee. In my view, therefore, judged by standards of strict monopoly right the agreement did not create any monopoly in the assessee. The view that I have taken is on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Coal Shipments Pvt. Ltd, [1971] 82 ITR 902 (SC) and of the Calcutta High Court in Agarwal Hardware Works P. Ltd. v. CIT [!980] 121 ITR 510 (Cal).
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

M/S. Jonas Woodhead & Sons Ltd., Madras vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 11 February, 1997

In the case of Agarwal Hardware Works (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-I, 121 (1980) ITR 510, the question for consideration before the Calcutta High Court was whether the payments made by the assessee to a foreign firm for use of certain patents would be a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The Calcutta High Court on consideration of the agreement between the parties came to the conclusion that since patents are not useable after termination of the agreement and the payments are indefinitive in nature based on production of goods, the assessee does not acquire any capital asset and, therefore, such payments made under the agreement are for the purpose of business and derive business expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Pharande Developers, Pune vs Assessee on 20 June, 2013

In an earlier decision, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. (supra) relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haware Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 64 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 251 and also the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prime Properties (ITA Nos. 887/PN/2010 & Others) dated 26.04.2012 and it was held that prior to 01.04.2005, the expression 'built-up area' has to be understood in the context of the relevant Development Control Rules of the local authority. The insertion of the definition of the 'built- up area' in Section 80-IB(14)(a) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 was held to be prospective in nature and not applicable for the evaluating the claim of deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act in relation to projects approved by the local authority prior to 01.04.2005. Following the aforesaid precedent, as in the present case the 'Samarth Nagari' project of the assessee has been approved by the local authority prior to 01.04.2005, the 'built-up area' of the units is required to be calculated as per the relevant Development Control Rules of the local authority and on that basis the area covered by canopy and balcony are not includible. In view of the aforesaid position, the objection of the Assessing Officer, in our view is untenable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd., Pune vs Assessee on 12 June, 2012

18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In this connection, the first and foremost issue is with regard to the meaning of the expression 'built up area' for the purposes of clause (c ) to Sec. 80 IB(10) of the Act. Sec. 80 IB (14)(a) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.4.2005 prescribing the definition of the expression 'built up area'. In terms of the said definition, the built up area inter alia, includes the area of projections and balconies. The moot point is as to whether the such definition is applicable in respect of the project in question before us. Admittedly, it is emerging from the orders of the authorities below that the project DSK Frangipani commenced on 12.12.2003 i.e. prior to the 01.4.2005. Therefore, Revenue authorities are not justified in including the balconies/open terraces in the calculation of 'built-up area' and the definition of 'built-up area'in terms of Sec. 80 IB (14)(a) of the Act cannot be applied to projects commenced prior to 1.4.2005.. The aforesaid proposition is in line with the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haware Constructions (Supra) as also the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prime Properties (Supra). Now coming to the issue of inclusion of area of car parking, the Assessing Officer has included the same in the calculation of ' built- up area' and such area has been considered by him at 300 sq.ft. for each of the residential units. As noted by us earlier, the definition of 'built- up area' contained in Sec. 80 IB (14)(a) of the Act is not applicable in the present case, being a project having commenced prior to 01.4.2005, and therefore for such like projects, it would be in fitness of the things that the expression 'built up area' is understood as per the Development Control Rules of the local authority, which has approved such a project. In this connection, clause 2.13 of the Development Control Rules, Pune, defines 'built-up area' as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Magarpatta Township Development& ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 August, 2012

This view is fortified by the decision of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Haware Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Emgeen Holdings P. Ltd. (supra) and Arcade Bhoomi Enterprises (supra), etc., as discussed above. In view of above, we hold that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of entire profits computed after making additions/disallowances in respect of Cosmos Project consisting of 24 buildings excluding Prime building. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sicpa India Private Limited (Formerly ... vs Assessee on 9 March, 2016

6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the fact relating to payment of royalty to foreign company amounting to Rs.l,80,71,146/- as shown in the Profit & Loss Account and claimed as revenue expenditure is declared by assessee in its accounts and computation of income with the return of income. Even otherwise, on merits, the issue is covered by the order of jurisdictional High court in the case of Agarwal Hardware Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 510 (Cal), wherein it is held that the expenditure incurred for payment of royalty for patents on percentage basis of annual production where the ownership rights of patents are retained by the owners, the expenditure is revenue in nature.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Permali Wallace Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 June, 1984

10. As regards the amount of Rs. 93,100 expended by the assessee in the purchase of " know-how " relating to the existing line of business, the case law on this point is now quite clear according to which it has been held by several decisions mentioned below that it has to be treated as a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure : CIT v. Wheels India Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 745 (Mad), ACC-Vickers Babcock Ltd. v. CIT[1976] 103 ITR 321 (Bom), Agarwal Hardware Works P. Ltd. v. CIT [1980]121 ITR 510 (Cal), CIT v. Oblum Electrical Industries P. Ltd. [1981] 127 ITR 409 (AP), Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 746.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Brahma Builders,, Pune vs Assessee on 20 March, 2012

18. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that the issue raised in this appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Open Shelters Pvt. Ltd. And D.S. Kulkarni Developers (supra), wherein it has been held that if the project is started prior to 1-4-2005 the limit of 2000 sq.ft. or 5% whichever is lower is not applicable and the deduction is to be allowed to the entire project. Assessing Officer was not justified to take date of commencement as 20/04/2005 which was date of revalidation. So Brahma Aangan project already commenced on 17/03/2001 i.e. prior to 01/04/2005. Similarly in respect of Brahma Majestic plan was sanctioned on 27/06/2003 i.e. much before 01/04/2005. Respectfully following the said decision, we direct the authorities below to allow deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act on account of both these projects. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.K. Builders,, Pune vs Assessee on 2 July, 2012

In view of above discussion the CIT was not justified to invoke provisions u/s.263 of Act. Moreover, the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Haware Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2011) 64 DTR (Mumbai) 251 has also taken a view that the terrace is not includible in the built up area of the flat prior to 1-4-2005 and hence for the projects commenced prior to 1-4-2005, terrace is not includible in the built up area. In view of the above, the decision of the CIT on this account does not justify the invoking of provisions u/s. 263 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next