Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.15 seconds)
I.P.Rings Ltd., Chennai vs Dcit, Chennai on 31 March, 2017 cites

Southern Switch Gear Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 December, 1997

CIT(A) in giving part relief to the assessee. So far as the facts of the case in hand and point at issue decided by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Southern Switchgears Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it is almost identical and such decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has further been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Southern Switchgears Ltd. (supra) and the ld. CIT(A) has followed such decision to give part relief to the assessee and no distinguishing feature has been pointed by the ld. DR in this regard. Therefore, while concurring with the finding and the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard, we uphold his action and dismiss this ground in all the appeals of the Revenue as well as of assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 52 - S C Sen - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs I. A. E. C. (Pumps) Ltd. on 3 April, 1997

7. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record as well as case law discussed by the ld. CIT(A) in his order and cited by the rival sides in the light of relevant clauses of agreement and find that the ld. CIT(A), while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Southern Switchgear Ltd. (supra) (order dated 11.12.1997), has directed the Assessing Officer to treat 25% of the royalty payment as capital expenditure and the balance 75% as revenue expenditure and the Assessing Officer has further been directed to allow appropriate depreciation on the 25% capital expenditure in accordance with law and while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) has preferred to follow the above decision, which was pronounced later to that of CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. 232 ITR 316 (SC) ( order dated 03.04.1997), which according to him would prevail. 7.1 We have considered the arguments of rival sides and materials on record in the light of precedent relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 65 - Full Document
1