Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs W.S. Insulators Of India Ltd. on 29 July, 1998

Jc Fashions, Jaipur vs Ito (T & J), Jaipur on 16 March, 2017

"We have heard the rival contention, and perused the material available records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that reopening was made after four years. The assessing officer has not brought any material available on record, that the assessee was guilty of not disclosing fully and truly all materials facts necessary for the assessment. We find that the Assessing Officer during the original assessment had made a specific query with regard to payment of commission and the assessee replied the same. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the materials facts related to the payments of commission was not before Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. The basis for reopening is the circular dated 22/10/2009 which was not having retrospective effect as held by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Modern Insulators(supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Mumbai vs Assessee

6.5. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. W.S. Insulators of India Ltd. - 243 ITR 348 according to which if a new technology is acquired for manufacturing of new products, it would be a capital expenditure. However, the above decision, in our opinion, is also not applicable to the facts of the present case and distinguishable in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of other High Courts cited above in favour of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit Large Tax Payer Unit 2, Chennai vs M/S India Japan Lighting Limited, ... on 23 November, 2022

Similarly, the facts in the case of CIT vs W.S.Insulators of India Ltd, 243 ITR 348(Mad), are akin to the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Switchgear Ltd(supra), in which products manufactured by the assessee were to be tested by the licensor and the drawings and documents were not to be used by the licensee for the purpose other than the purpose of the agreement which was acquiring know-how and licence for manufacture of products based on drawings provided by the foreign company. In that case, it was held that payment for obtaining know-how, drawings and information is primarily a capital expenditure, but still the Assessing Officer had allowed 20% of such expenditure as revenue which was treated as attributable to technical advice regarding day-to-day operations, layout, etc. In our opinion, this decision is not directly applicable to the facts of the given case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 July, 2002

27. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly justified the disallowance in the light of the discussions in the impugned order. He vehemently contended that the expenditure in question was not for business consideration as the payments have resulted in benefit of enduring nature to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative further contended that any expenditure incurred for the purpose of brining a source of income to existence is capital in nature and, therefore, pleaded that the orders of the authorities below should be upheld. For this purpose, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 342 (SC) and CIT v. Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 536 (SC) and also on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. W.S. Insulators of India Ltd, (2000) 243 ITR 348 (Mad).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 37 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

India Japan Lighting P Ltd., Chennai vs Assessee on 10 April, 2013

Similarly, the 18 I.T.A. No. 2154/Mds/11 facts in the case of CIT vs W.S.Insulators of India Ltd, 243 ITR 348(Mad), are akin to the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Switchgear Ltd(supra), in which products manufactured by the assessee were to be tested by the licensor and the drawings and documents were not to be used by the licensee for the purpose other than the purpose of the agreement which was acquiring know-how and licence for manufacture of products based on drawings provided by the foreign company. In that case, it was held that payment for obtaining know-how, drawings and information is primarily a capital expenditure, but still the Assessing Officer had allowed 20% of such expenditure as revenue which was treated as attributable to technical advice regarding day-to-day operations, layout, etc. In our opinion, this decision is not directly applicable to the facts of the given case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Japan Lighting P Ltd., Chennai vs Assessee on 8 March, 2010

Similarly, the facts in the case of CIT vs W.S.Insulators of India Ltd, 243 ITR 348(Mad), are akin to the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Switchgear Ltd(supra), in which products manufactured by the assessee were to be tested by the licensor and the drawings and documents were not to be used by the licensee for the purpose other than the purpose of the agreement which was acquiring know-how and licence for manufacture of products based on drawings provided by the foreign company. In that case, it was held that payment for obtaining know-how, drawings and information is primarily a capital expenditure, but still the Assessing Officer had allowed 20% of such expenditure as revenue which was treated as attributable to technical advice regarding day-to-day operations, layout, etc. In our opinion, this decision is not directly applicable to the facts of the given case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Elve Corporation, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 November, 2015

23 (dated 23.7.1961) and 786 (dated 7.2.2000) by the CBDT vide Circular No. 9/2007 dated 22.10.2009 is not retrospective, even as held in CIT vs. Modern Insulators Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 138 (Raj). As such, these Circulars were in force when the payments were made, and the clarification per Circular 23 that no income shall be chargeable to tax in India in such a case shall prevail.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit 17(1), Mumbai vs Elve Corporation, Mumbai on 25 April, 2017

23 (dated 23.7.1961) and 786 (dated 7.2.2000) by the CBDT vide Circular No. 9/2007 dated 22.10.2009 is not retrospective, even as held in CIT vs. Modern Insulators Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 138 (Raj). As such, these Circulars were in force when the payments were made, and the clarification per Circular 23 that no income shall be chargeable to tax in India in such a case shall prevail.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 151 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs Assessee on 27 April, 2016

7. The aforesaid view was followed and reiterated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 321 ITR 31 (Kar), by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Modern Insulators Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 138 (Raj), by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Fluidtherm Technology Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 259 (Mad) and by the Bangalore Bench of the learned Tribunal in Zanav Home Collection v. JCIT (2015) 68 SOT 184 (Bang).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1