HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance of repair and maintenance and staff welfare expenses, finding the Assessing Officer's disallowances to be ad-hoc and without rejecting the books of account. However, the Tribunal sustained the addition for delayed payment of PF/ESI, following a Supreme Court judgment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Company Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals against orders of the CIT(Appeals) concerning AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14. The appeals involved issues such as disallowance of bad debts, traffic challans, security deposits, and additions on account of inventory losses, repair and maintenance, staff welfare expenses, and delayed payment of PF/ESI.
What were the issues?
Whether ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO without rejecting books of accounts are sustainable, and whether delayed payments of PF/ESI are deductible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.204 citing261 ITR 275 · 2003 · SC
- Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT185 citing98 ITR 167 · 1975 · SC
- CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.164 citing19 ITR 191 · 1951 · SC
- Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT133 citing225 ITR 383 · 1993 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.120 citing162 Taxmann 60 · 2007 · HC · Read judgment
- 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)61 citing73 ITR 634 · 1969 · SC
- Jamna Auto Industries v. CIT25 citing167 Taxmann 192 · 2008 · HC
- Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. DCIT6 citing6 SOT 10 · 2006 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM:
All the above appeals are filed by the Assessee and Revenue
against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) for the asses
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd…Delhi5 Mar 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Jamna Auto Industries v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding disallowance of repair and maintenance and staff welfare expenses, finding the Assessing Officer's disallowances to be ad-hoc and without rejecting the books of acco...
- Professional Automotives Private Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Jaipur23 Jul 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Jamna Auto Industries v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. For assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the appeals were partly allowed, with directions to the AO to re-examine certain claims and make adjustments...
- Messung Systems Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…Pune8 Jun 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) and 1 other authority
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding agency commission, stating that the assessee had succeeded on the same issue in preceding years and the expenditure was not necessarily incurred. For sales promotion, the disallo...
- M/S. Unique Metropolis, Ahmedabad vs Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9…Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing PAN details, confirmations, and banking transaction evidence for cash credits. Therefore, the deletion of the addition of ...
- Ogene Systems India Limited, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), HyderabadHyderabad6 May 2021Allowed
Also relies on Jamna Auto Industries v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the encashment of the bank guarantee was incurred in the normal course of business and was compensatory in nature, not penal. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026