Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 October, 1986

Goodyear India Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer. (Asstt. Cit V. ... on 31 January, 2000

In fact, he supported his view that it was a revenue expenditure by citing several decisions like those of Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) and Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd.'s case (supra), of Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd.'s case (supra), Shama Engine Valves Ltd.'s case (supra), etc. He, however, added that these decisions of allowability of payment of consideration for right to use of technical know-how were given before the introduction of s. 35AB with effect from asst. yr. 1986-87 and, therefore, according to him, these decisions were not relevant in the case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 94 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 March, 1999

Ltd.'s case (supra) and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) have relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) which cannot be considered as laying down the correct law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. (supra) as well as the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. (supra). I accordingly allow the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 August, 2000

A similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 639 (Del) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative before us. In this case the assessee claimed deduction of expenditure incurred for obtaining a project report for manufacturing insecticide formulation. The Court held that the expenditure attributable to coming into existence additional fixed asset was clearly of capital nature. We would accordingly uphold the action of the CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 4.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 63 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

S.A. Builders Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 20 June, 2002

(i) Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT ( 1987) 167 ITR 742 (All) - Where the High Court has observed that the assessee had not been able to prove that the disputed part of the amount taken as a loan from the bank was used for the purpose of its business or that the advance made to other concern had been made for the purpose of its business. The disallowance of part of the interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was, therefore, held to be justified.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 55 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 September, 1994

11. Not only this, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a decision delivered by Full Bench in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 732 relied upon the reasoning of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. (supra) while dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase-tax Act, 1961 and concluded that interest payable on arrears of sugarcane purchase tax is in reality part and parcel of the liability of purchase tax. It again fortifies the above observations of ours and interest payable on arrears of sales-tax is in reality part and parcel of the liability of sales tax and once it has not been paid, the same cannot be allowed as deduction because the same is hit by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 28 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Eicher Motors Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 31 May, 2002

4.5 We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of the material available on record and have gone through the order impugned and the decisions quoted by them. The Department has disallowed the deduction on the basis that the payment of royalty was for acquisition of patents and copyrights; hence the same was capital expenditure and eligible for patents amortisation under Section 35A of the Act. From a thorough, reading of the terms of the agreement dt. 4th Oct., 1982, between MMC and the assessee, we find force in the submission of the learned authorised Representative, that the expenditure in question was on obtaining access to technical knowledge of the collaborator for a limited duration and the payment was made as a licensee for obtaining the right to use the know-how and it was not a case of outright purchase of the know-how. We also agree with the plea of the learned authorised representative that there is distinction between the acquisition/purchase of know-how and use of know-how and where transferor retains property rights in the design, Secret formula, etc. and allow the use of such right, the same is in the nature of royalty whereas in an outright sale or purchase, the consideration is for transfer of such rights and cannot be termed as royalty. The assessee having power to sub-licence the right granted by the MMC under the agreement has been emphasized by the AO without appreciating the material fact that such right cannot be exercised without the prior approval of MMC. We have also gone through the comparative chart furnished on behalf of the assessee placed at pp. 152 to 160 of the paper book wherein the facts of different leading cases of Goodyear (supra), Shriram Refrigeration (supra), Triveni Engg, (supra), Ciba of India Ltd. (supra), Alembic.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 102 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next