Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)
Acit Circle-17(1), New Delhi vs Metronation Chennai Television Ltd., ... on 21 August, 2024 cites

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 11 November, 1954

Fifthly, in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) it was held that the payment of 'protection fee' was capital in as much as it was incurred for the acquisition of an asset or advantage of an enduring nature for the whole of the business and was no part of the working or operational expenses for carrying on the business of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 406 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Taparia Tools Ltd. vs Jt. Cit on 8 January, 2003

y* Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs Jt. CIT (126 > Without paying carriage fee, the company will not be able to increase its Taxmann 544) (Bombay High Court) viewership, outreach and thereby its • Amount of marketing, revenues. distribution & promotion expenses • Addition is deleted. (Pg 12) incurred in the initial stage of business is (Case Law cited ACIT Vs M/s Citi considered capital in nature due to 2 Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. reasons: (Para 3.6, Pg 3) r: (HAT Delhi), ITA No. 2848/Del/2012 & ITA No. 6305/Del/2012- upheld by Delhi HC in • It has been incurred in the initial stage of commercialization of business • It is going to give enduring and long-term benefits to assessee • Nature of these expenses is such that it is not depreciable as not qualifying definition of intangible asset (Para 3.8, Pg 2013-14 • Revenue of the assessee is (Deptt. Rs.2,91,53,480/- against which it had Appeal) debited Rs.10,10,98,186/- as marketing, (Para 5.4, Pg 10) Rs.10,10,98,186/- distribution and promotion expenses in its • Addition is deleted as character of P&L Account. (Para 3.2, Pg 4) carriage fees is similar to • Other facts and reasons same advertisement and publicity/promotion. as above (Pg 7 to 12) (Relied on decision of Id. CIT (A)-39 in A.Y. 2012- 13 as facts are similar, following the principle of consistency and judicial precedence.)
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 37 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

C.I.T.,Delhi vs Bharti Hexacom Ltd. on 16 October, 2023

11. Coming to the submissions of the Ld. DR, the Ld. DR relied on the Bharati Hexacom Ltd. (supra), we observed that in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as evaluated the license fees paid by the assessee for a period of 12 years which was amortized for a period of 12 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the payment of entry fee as well as variable annual license fee paid by the assessee to DoT under policy of 1999 would be cable in nature and was to be amortized in accordance with section 35ABB.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 5 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document
1   2 Next