1. CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

237 ITR 190High Court1999#10646 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 31(i)Section 32(1)(iia)

Issues it is cited on

section 248section 195(1)section 195(2)section 197section 9(1)(vii)section 195section 246fees for technical servicessection 9(1)section 246anon-residentsection 19

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 177 Taxman 82 (Bom HC) iii. CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd. [1993] 202 IATR 1014 (Delhi) iv. DLF Commercial Project Corporation 379 ITR 538 (Delhi) v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC) vi. DECTA 237 ITR 190 AAR vii. ABB Ltd. 189 Taxmann 422 viii. Ernst and Young Ltd. 49 taxmann.com 386 (Kolkata ITAT) 13. We carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant. On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made by the AO solely for the reason of non-deduction of tax at source on payments made t…

KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2495/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Us Raising Following Grounds In Its Appeal: -

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

…v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd (142 ITR 493) (Kol.) iv. Mahindra & Mahindra v DCIT (ITA No. 85 8597/Mum/2010) (Mum.) v. ADIT v Antwerp Diamond Bank Inv (ITA No. 7347/Mum/2007) (Mum.) vi. A.P.Moller Maersk v DCIT (ITA No. 8703, 8704/Mum/2010) (Mum.) vii. DECTA, In re (237 ITR 190) (AAR) Page No. | 9 Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC 14. Further, it submitted that the reimbursement of expenditure will also not attract Article 12(4) and submitted that the relevant receipt of reimbursement of expenditure will not fall under ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right etc., and also it does not come unde…

BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1691/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DI…

BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DI…

BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3122/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DI…

BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

…. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon plethora of judicial precedence and relevant case law cited in the form of paper book by the assessee are as under: 1. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 493 (Calcutta) 2. DECTA vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 190 (AAR-N.Delhi) 3. DIT vs. Krupp UdheGMBH [2013] 354 ITR 173 (Bom) 4. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. ITA 1160 and 2305 of 2013-ITAT Kol 5. DCIT vs. KPMG [2017] 81 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai) 6. DCIT vs. Ernst & Young P Ltd. 32 ITR(T) 639 (Kolkata) 7. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany 8. Emersons Process Management vs. Ad. CIT 9. DI…

CHANDER MOHAN LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 61(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

…er Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) ix. Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) x. Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) xi. Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82 ITD 106 (Mum) xii. Hyder Consulting Ltd. v. CIT: 236 ITR 640 (AAR) xiii. DECTA v. CIT: 237 ITR 190 (AAR) xiv. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd: 309 ITR 356 (AAR) xv. GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : 327 ITR 456 (SC) xvi. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT : Civil (Appeal) No. 8733-8734 of 2018 (SC). xvii. Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : 323 ITR 130 (Del.) xviii. Estel Communications (P)…

H.J. HEINZ COMPANY, USA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1991/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleh. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Adit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-1(2) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation Mumabi New Delhi Aacch2144P (Respondent) (Appellant) H. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Acit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-2(1)(1), Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation, Mumabi Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, E- Aacch2144P Z Block, Pratyaksh Kar (Appellant) Bhawan New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ssue where it is held that when there is only recoupment of expenses, there is no element of income and held the same cannot be held to be taxable in India. The decisions on reimbursements are as under:- " Dunlop Rubber 142 ITR 493 Kolkata High Court " DECTA 237 ITR 190-AAR " Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 189 Taxman 422-AAR Bombay High Court " ABB Ltd 189 Taxman 422-AAR " Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. 49 Taxmann.com 386 Kolkata ITAT 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee does not “Make Available” technical services of Heinz India and hence should not be taxable as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under the pr…

H.J. HEINZ COMPANY, USA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6252/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleh. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Adit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-1(2) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation Mumabi New Delhi Aacch2144P (Respondent) (Appellant) H. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Acit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-2(1)(1), Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation, Mumabi Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, E- Aacch2144P Z Block, Pratyaksh Kar (Appellant) Bhawan New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ssue where it is held that when there is only recoupment of expenses, there is no element of income and held the same cannot be held to be taxable in India. The decisions on reimbursements are as under:- " Dunlop Rubber 142 ITR 493 Kolkata High Court " DECTA 237 ITR 190-AAR " Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 189 Taxman 422-AAR Bombay High Court " ABB Ltd 189 Taxman 422-AAR " Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. 49 Taxmann.com 386 Kolkata ITAT 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee does not “Make Available” technical services of Heinz India and hence should not be taxable as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under the pr…

M/S. DOLPHIN DRILLING PTE. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…vs. Sundwiger Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) • Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) • Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) • Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82 ITD 106 (Mum) • Hyder Consulting Ltd. v. CIT: 236 ITR 640 (AAR) • DECTA v. CIT: 237 ITR 190 (AAR) • Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd: 309 ITR 356 (AAR) Since in the present case, the receipts of the appellant from DDL are pure reimbursements of cost incurred by the appellant for supplying the crew to DDL-IPO and cannot be treated as income of the recipient, liable to tax in India. Section 44BB of the Act is a special, specific…