Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.37 seconds)
Dcit Rg. - 3(1), Mumbai vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai on 23 February, 2024 cites

Brooke Bond India Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West ... on 27 February, 1997

74. Respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to allow the ground raised by the assessee and with regard to the decision of the Brooke Bond India Limited v. CIT (supra) relied by Ld DR, we observe that the above decision was also quoted before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has considered the same and distinguished the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 288 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Vania Silk Mills (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad on 14 August, 1991

"21. In the books of account for the period relevant to the assessment year underappeal, the assessee has shown Rs.1,48,47,037/- as surplus on redemption of treasury bills. The Assessing Officer held the aforesaid amount as short term capital gains. The claim of the assessee is, that redemption of treasury bills result in total extinguishment of the treasury bills other than by way of transfer, hence, does not cover by the definition of 'transfer u/s 2(47) of the Act so as subjected to short term capital gains. The CIT(A) following the ratio laid down in the case of Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 191 ITR 647(SC) held that in redemption, the asset in the form of treasury bills stood extinguished without transfer. Therefore, the surplus arising out of redemption of treasury bills cannot be subject to capital gains. The treasury bills being capital asset, the surplus arising out of its redemption can neither be taxed as revenue receipt. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly Page No.| 38 ITA NO.4236 & 4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited admitted LA that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 113 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat on 31 March, 1989

In view of the above, the know-how expenditure incurred by the company for an on-going business does not create enduring benefit in view of rapid obsolescence in technology as has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. v CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) & CIT v. Ciba India Ltd 69 ITR 692 (SC). The said expenditure was incurred with respect to achieving better operational capabilities and therefore, the said expenditure ought to be allowed as a deduction."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 399 - R S Pathak - Full Document

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

In Assam Bengal Cement Co Ltd. v. CIT [177 ITR 377] it was held that the expenditure incurred for procuring an enduring benefit to the business is to be treated as a capital expenditure. In view of the above I hold that the amount paid is to be treated as capital expenditure and at most the appellant is entitled to depreciation on this amount. The order of the Assessing Officer on this point is confirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 406 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Ima Pg India Ltd ( Formerly M.S, ... vs Addl Cit Rg 5(2), Mumbai on 26 April, 2017

66. In the given case, assessee has acquired a new technique in order to assist in manufacture / assemble of multi model in the same manufacturing / assembly line. This is a new information or technique acquired by the assessee from M/s.Kawasaki Heavy Industries Limited, Japan. This clearly shows that assessee has acquired a new method of manufacturing of multi models of scooters in one dedicated manufacturing or assembly line instead of several dedicated lines for each model. This shows that it is not an Page No.| 55 ITA NO.4236 & 4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited improvement of existing manufacturing process. Certain improvements can also be made in the existing line or may be certain process were readjusted to improve the efficiency of the manufacturing line. However, in this case it is completely new process technique acquired by the assessee and it is relevant to note that assessee also paid a huge sum to acquire the above technique and in books of accounts also assessee has recognized that assessee has a new technique and claimed as deferred revenue expenditure. Further, as held in the case of M/s.Bharat Gears Limited v. CIT (supra), the expenses incurred by the assessee is nothing but capital expenditure and assessee has an option to claim either differed revenue expenditure or depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer. After considering the overall facts on record, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next