Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.17 seconds)
Gujarat Glass P.Ltd., vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 February, 2013 cites

Mukand Global Finance Ltd. vs Dcit - Range 3(2) on 27 November, 2007

Ind Global Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 2012 TIOL 524 ITAT Mum The assessee acquired the merchant banking business from Ind Global Financial Trust Ltd. and paid non-compete fee to the Managing Director of the seller company. The assessee claimed that the payment was deferred revenue expenditure. The said claim was disallowed by the AO but was allowed by the CIT(A). Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised an additional ground claiming depreciation on such payment, if it was held to be capital in nature. The Tribunal held that the payment was capital following Tecumseh but allowed the additional ground by relying on the decision in the case of Real Image and Schott Glass.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 39 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs The Acit on 28 February, 2007

1. Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (127 lTD 1)(Delhi)(SB) The Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal was concerned with a case of takeover of business and payment of non-compete fee. The Tribunal noted that the purchase price paid for the business (excluding non-compete fee) was Rs. 49.85 crores. If a further sum of Rs. 2.65 crores paid on account of non-compete fee was added to the same, the total would come to Rs. 52.50 crores, which was the amount mentioned in the MOU for transfer of the business. Therefore, the Tribunal held 13 Piramal Glass Limited Earlier known as Gujarat Glass Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 58 - Cited by 130 - Full Document

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996

34. He further submitted that additional ground on legality can be raised at any stage during the pendency of trial, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383. This, according to the Senior Counsel was a general ratio, but specifically, with regard to the instant case, he submitted that the issue was very much under consideration, even in its original adjudication, wherein the coordinate Bench at page 2 of the order takes cognizance of the issues being agitated by the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 1462 - Full Document

Mysore Minerals Ltd., M.G. Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... on 1 September, 1999

In the decision of Nair Service Society Ltd. vs K.C. Alexander, reported in 1968 AIR 1165 SC (mentioned in the case of Mysore Minerals (supra)), took reference from the decision of Perry Vs Clissold, reported in (1907) AC 73 PC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals (cited by the Senior Counsel), makes reference to the decision of CIT vs Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd., reported in 226 ITR 625(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 16 Piramal Glass Limited Earlier known as Gujarat Glass Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 394 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968

In the decision of Nair Service Society Ltd. vs K.C. Alexander, reported in 1968 AIR 1165 SC (mentioned in the case of Mysore Minerals (supra)), took reference from the decision of Perry Vs Clissold, reported in (1907) AC 73 PC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals (cited by the Senior Counsel), makes reference to the decision of CIT vs Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd., reported in 226 ITR 625(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 16 Piramal Glass Limited Earlier known as Gujarat Glass Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 390 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997

ITA 4842/Mum/2004 ITA 4779/Mum/2004 Court held, "We are conscious of the settled position that under the common law, 'owner' means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act etc. But, in the context of section 22 of the Income Tax Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Income Tax Act, namely, 'to tax the income'. We are of the view, 'owner' is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right". This position may be a little different from the decision of Privy Council, cited above, wherein the Privy Council observed, "It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of limitation applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title". In the present case, the transfer of an intangible, from PEL to GGL took effect on 01.04.1998. Keeping in view the decision of Podar Cements (supra), GGL could only exert its domain on and after 01.04.1998. Before this date, the intangible was in use by NPIL, which the owner, PEL could have never transferred to GGL. After this date, neither PEL nor NPIL could ever exert any right of any kind over the knowhow. Therefore, the transfer of knowhow by PEL to the assessee can only be called a transfer of an asset on and with effect from 01.04.1998, for which the assessee claimed depreciation in the current assessment year.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 654 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1   2 3 Next