Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.34 seconds)
Mercedes - Benz India Pvt. Ltd.,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, on 1 August, 2019 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 Chennai vs M/S. Kcp Sugars And Industries ... on 29 August, 2016

12. From the above, it is evident that the requisite facts are common to the issue raised in the present appeal. Arguments of both the parties, past history of this claim of earlier assessment year etc are also discussed and find them similar too. Explaining provision of Section 35AB of the Act, we have analysed the discussion on meaning of expression „paid‟ or „actually paid‟ etc. We have also discussed on the expression of "any lump sum consideration" and "liberal interpretation" of the said section 35AB of the Act, being deduction provision. Distinguishing the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. EIMCO & KCP Ltd., 242 ITR 659, the claim of the assessee was not allowed in the assessment year 1998-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Gannon Dunkerley And Co. Ltd. And ... vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Others on 10 June, 1985

3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred to amendment of section 32 by the Finance Act, 1998 which allows the depreciation on the intangible assets, such as know-how acquired on or after 01-04-1998. He submitted that the MB India issued shares in lieu of genuine pre-existing debt and the same should be considered for consideration in cash. In this regard, he submitted that, as per the Company Law provisions, the issue of shares against a genuine debt is held to be "issue of shares for cash".
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

The Eimco K.C.P. Ltd., Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 25 February, 2000

5. The contention of the Assessing Officer(now referred as AO) was that technical know-how fees discharged by way of allotment of shares does not amount to 'expenditure' in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. V. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 151(SC). Thus the Revenue heavily relied on the above referred judgement and therefore, the reliance is placed on the orders of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard by the undersigned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 29 - S S Quadri - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Triumph International Finance (I) ... on 12 June, 2012

7. During the course of the argument, the undersigned had also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs Triumph International Finance (I) Limited [2012] 22 taxmann.com 138 (Born.) to make a proposition that where loan deposit has been repaid merely debiting account through journal entries the assessee has contravened the provisions of section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the relevant Assessment Year it was observed that instead of repaying loan and receiving sale price of shares both parties had agreed that the said amount i.e. a loan and sale consideration to be set off in their respective books by journal entries. In the impugned case before us the assessee has the technical know-how fees has been discharged by 17 ITA No.1865/PUN/2013 A.Y.1999-2000 way of allotment of shares by merely entering into journal entries and therefore cannot be termed as "lump sum consideration" for payment of technical know-how as per the provision of section 35AB of the I T Act, 1961. The referred order has already been submitted by the undersigned during the course of the hearing.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 49 - J P Devadhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next