COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NESTLE INDIA LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1496 / 2010HC Delhi01 October 20101 pages
For Petitioner: SANJEEV SABHARWAL
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law framed as: "Whether ITAT erred in holding that the entire royalty payment was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business?". The Court did not provide a decision on the merits of this question in the excerpt. The operative direction was to admit the appeal and dispense with the filing of the paper book. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the judgment is an admission order for the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Nestle India Ltd. (Respondent). The appeals are admitted on a substantial question of law concerning whether the ITAT erred in holding that the entire royalty payment was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. The procedural history indicates that the appeals were preferred under Section 260A, and the High Court has admitted the appeals on the stated substantial question of law. The Court has dispensed with the filing of the paper book as the counsel for the assessee has entered appearance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the entire royalty payment was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the provided text. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the provided text. The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law framed by the Court, implying the Revenue has raised this point. However, specific arguments made by either side are not detailed in this excerpt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . 1 , 5 and 7 . ITA 1496/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate versus . NESTLE INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra and Ms.Kavita Jha, Advocates . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 01.10.2010 CM No.17295/2010 in ITA 1496/2010 CM No.17308/2010 in ITA 1514/2010 . Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 1496/2010, 1514/2010 and 1516/2010 The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is admitted on the following substantial question of law: ?Whether ITAT erred in holding that the entire royalty payment was laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business?? . As Mr.Ajay Vohra, learned counsel for the assessee, has entered appearance on behalf of the assessee, no further notice need be issued. Filing of paper book stands dispensed with. . CHIEF JUSTICE . . MANMOHAN, J OCTOBER 01, 2010/sv

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →