Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.57 seconds)Hylam Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 November, 1971
43. At this juncture, we may mention that in Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 773, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court overruling the Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Hylam Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 310, made substantially a similar observation regarding the ephemeral character of the technical know-how de hors specific processes, patterns and designs, etc., conveyed along therewith. The Full Bench also rejected the distinction sought to be made between the licensing of the know-how and the acquisition thereof or an argument based on the liability to return the know-how. According to the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case before it the imparting of special knowledge and technical know-how by the foreign collaborators to the assessee-company would be just like a teacher imparting his skill or knowledge to his student. According to that High Court, each factor by itself was not decisive, but the totality or the cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances would be the prime guiding factor to decide the aim and object of the expenditure, be it capital or revenue. Where the expenditure had a direct nexus, connection or relation to the carrying on or conduction of the business of the assessee, it would have to be held or regarded as an integral part of the profit-making process. In such a case it must be held to be revenue expenditure.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. on 5 February, 1974
were to be returned to the foreign company, namely, the S.L.M. The court, however, emphasised as it had already pointed out in Elecon Engineering Co.'s case [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Guj) that the aspect of obsolescence must not be lost sight of while considering the question of acquisition of technical know-how and information. The court ultimately held on consideration of the totality of the circumstances attending upon the transactions before it that the expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Ciba Of India Ltd on 15 December, 1967
55. Mr. Joshi has taken us through the English decisions in which the principal question being considered pertained to the payment received by the supplier of know-how and whether the same would constitute a capital receipt or not. What we are concerned with is the reverse case and in view of the Supreme Court decision in Ciba's case [1968] 69 ITR 692 and our High Court decision in Telco's case [1980] 123 ITR 538, we find it unnecessary to discuss these decisions in depth.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Ciba Pharma Private Limited on 21 January, 1965
By this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Ciba Pharma P. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 428. At pages 701 and 702 of its decision, the Supreme Court has noted various features of the agreement which was being considered by it. These are, in the words of the Supreme Court :
Acc-Vickers Babcock Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 3 July, 1975
In ACC-Vickers Babcock Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 321, this court had the occasion to consider a collaboration agreement between the assessee before it and Fuller Company of U.S.A. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ciba's case [1968] 69 ITR 692 was cited before the Division Bench which opined that the duration of the agreement cannot be decisive of the matter. (See p. 333 of 103 ITR) The Division Bench found that there was in the collaboration agreement before it a term which cast an obligation upon the assessee to return all the information and technical know-how to Fuller at the termination of the agreement. According to the Bench, such a term negatived the case of the Revenue which was that the foreign collaborator had the assessee (sic). Hence it was held that the expenditure would be required to be regarded as an integral part of the assessee's profit making process and hence revenue in nature.
Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 17 April, 1978
Again, whilst considering the decisions of the Mysore High Court in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 23 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court Hylam Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 310 in favour of the Revenue cited before it (which decisions were overruled by these two High Courts subsequently in Full Bench decisions) it was observed (at page 336 of 103 ITR) :
Antifriction Bearings Corporation ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 November, 1977
36. The Supreme Court decision in Ciba's case [1968] 69 ITR 692 was followed once again by this court in Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 335. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court emphasised certain terms of the collaboration agreement which provided for a restricted use by the assessee in a restricted manner for a ten year term. In the opinion of the High Court, the case fell squarely within Ciba's decision .
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Pvt. ... on 14 February, 1979
37. We now come to a very important decision which is the principal foundation on which the assessee's case before us is based. That is the decision of this High Court in CIT v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 538. In our opinion, a detailed reference to the facts on which the said decision has been given would be necessary.
Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 March, 1975
42. It may be mentioned that the decision of the Madras High Court in Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 665, was cited by learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue before the said Bench, but the same was expressly dissented from.