DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI vs. CARLSBERG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3190/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) can be made as the assessee had sufficient own funds to advance to its subsidiary. For Section 14A, disallowance is not permissible if there is no exempt income. Regarding AMP expenses, the Tribunal directed a re-computation based on APA methodology.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and sale of beer, filed a return declaring a loss. International transactions led to transfer pricing adjustments. The AO made additions, and the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is justified when own funds are sufficient; whether Section 14A is applicable without exempt income; and the correct computation of AMP expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CA &, Shri Paras Sharma, AR &, Ms. Ruchika Mittal, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Hearing: 28/07/2025Pronounced: 31/07/2025

PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM: These cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are arising out from the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi dated 22nd January, 2019 in Appeal No.100/2015-16/CIT(A)-42 relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

2.

Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India on 3rd Mary

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →