Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.28 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M/S. Advanta India Ltd., Secunderabad on 9 October, 2015
cites
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Southern Switchgear Ltd. vs Cit on 12 August, 2002
Before us, on behalf of the revenue, it was emphatically canvassed
that the assessee had acquired Germplasm which itself is an asset and
further the technical know-how for use to exploit the same for the
purpose of the assessees business. The technical know-how and the
Germplasm is an asset of capable of giving an enduring benefit to the
assessee and further considering the facts on record had rightly
apportioned the expenditure in the ratio 1/4th as capital in nature and
2/3rd in the nature of revenue by applying the legal tests laid down in a
judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Southern Switchgear
Limited (1 supra) which is approved by the Supreme Court in Southern
Switchgear Limited vs. CIT (2 supra).
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat on 31 March, 1989
In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Alembic Chemicals Case (5 supra) is distinguishable. In that view of
the matter, apportioning a part of the expenditure in the nature of a
capital expenditure by the CIT Appeals cannot be termed as erroneous.
This single distinguishing factor is sufficient to answer the Question
No.1 in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil ... vs Southern Switchgear Ltd. on 29 March, 1983
In the context of the guidance
provided in those judgments, we may consider the arguments advanced
before us. At this stage, we may note that the CIT Appeals itself did not
agree with the views of the assessing officer in entirety and however
found that only a small portion of the expenditure could be treated as
capital in nature by applying the principles laid down in the case of
Southern Switchgear Limited (2 supra) whereas the assessee had relied
on the judgment reported in a case of CIT vs. I.A.E.C (Pumps) Ltd as
more appropriate. All the cases ultimately emphasis as a rule, the
analysis and proper understanding of the agreement between the parties
as providing a correct picture with respect to the aspect as to how a
particular expenditure is to be treated. In the case on hand, we had set
out the findings as recorded by the Tribunal in the earlier paragraphs.
In the present case, there is no challenge to the findings recorded by the
Tribunal by raising a question of perversity of a fact. In view of the
settled principles of law, the questions raised before us are required to be
considered and answered on the facts as found and recorded by the
Tribunal.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shriram Bearings Ltd. on 21 June, 2001
On the analyses of the agreement, we find that 1) it is termed as a
licensing agreement and the parties contemplated the same to be as a
licensing agreement. 2) Under the agreement, the assessee (licensee) to
get a right and license to use the technical information and the Licensor
Germplasm to research and develop, produce and sell products within
the India. 3) The assessee gets immunity from legal proceedings with
respect to patent rights, if any in India. The assessee acquires
documents relating to technical information and with genetic material
for maize, sunflower, canola, mustard, sorghum, millet and cotton.
Assessee also would get assistance in acquiring appropriate personal,
facilities, plant, machinery and equipment for the research, development,
production and processing of products by the licensee. Assessee gets the
right to use, produce and sell the Germplasm in a specified products by
way of sub-license to its affiliates.)
One of the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal is with regard to
whether there is any enduring benefit likely to accrue in favour of the
assessee on account of the agreement. This question was answered in
the negative by the Tribunal by reference to the fast changing
development in the filed of biotechnology. Reliance was also placed on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemicals
Works Company vs. CIT apart from the judgments in the cases of CIT
vs. Avery India Ltd , CIT vs. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd and CIT vs.
Shriram Bearings Ltd .
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Ciba Of India Ltd on 15 December, 1967
i) CIT vs. CIBA of India Ltd (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC)
ii) Praga Tools Ltd vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 773 (AP)
iii) Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 546 (AP)
iv) Alembic Chemicals Works Company Ltd vs. CIT (1989) 177
ITR 377 (SC)
v) Veljan Hydrair Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 552 (AP)
vi) CIT vs. Avery India Ltd (1994) 207 ITR 813 (Cal)
vii) CIT vs. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd (1998) 231 ITR 849 (Mum)
Praga Tools Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 November, 1979
i) CIT vs. CIBA of India Ltd (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC)
ii) Praga Tools Ltd vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 773 (AP)
iii) Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 546 (AP)
iv) Alembic Chemicals Works Company Ltd vs. CIT (1989) 177
ITR 377 (SC)
v) Veljan Hydrair Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 552 (AP)
vi) CIT vs. Avery India Ltd (1994) 207 ITR 813 (Cal)
vii) CIT vs. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd (1998) 231 ITR 849 (Mum)
Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 June, 1983
i) CIT vs. CIBA of India Ltd (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC)
ii) Praga Tools Ltd vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 773 (AP)
iii) Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 546 (AP)
iv) Alembic Chemicals Works Company Ltd vs. CIT (1989) 177
ITR 377 (SC)
v) Veljan Hydrair Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 552 (AP)
vi) CIT vs. Avery India Ltd (1994) 207 ITR 813 (Cal)
vii) CIT vs. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd (1998) 231 ITR 849 (Mum)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K. Synthetics Ltd. on 21 February, 2001
ix) CIT vs. J.K Synthetics Ltd (2009) 309 ITR 371 (Delhi)