Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Section 37 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Honda Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Budh ... vs Assessee on 7 January, 2016
Since the Revenue's
stand is based on hypothetical basis that the said products would be
manufactured by each of them or any one of them, the Court concluded
that it is an erroneous presumption that the benefit of any R & D activity
can be exploited by an enterprise, by utilising the same in its
manufacturing activity. The Court also noted that an enterprise can
always assign the benefit thereof to a third party. It can grant a license
in respect of any patent or design to a third party in which event the
other units would not derive any benefit and thus there can be no nexus
between R & D units and the units wherein the assessee is carrying on
activity with regard to the existing products. Similar view was taken by
the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Bush Boake Allen (India)
Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (273 ITR 152) wherein the Court observed that there
cannot be any presumption that any technology about new flavours or
essence will automatically be utilised in other units.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973
In view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra) and
also on careful perusal of the facts, we are of the opinion that the view
taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court is an appropriate view and,
at any cost, it is one of the possible views on the matter which requires
to be taken into consideration in the light of the Apex Court decision
in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., (88 ITR 192). Under
these circumstances, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not
justified in allocating R & D expenditure and ESOP cost against the
profits of other eligible units wherein assessee claimed deduction u/s
80IC of the Act.
Section 92B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1