96 Taxmann.com 275 (Calcutta HC) (v) CIT v. Jai Drinks (P) Ltd.

336 ITR 383High Court2011#7579 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 194HSection 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 263Section 115JBSection 135Section 144C(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(8)section 194hdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 80icsection 194jsection 40a(2)(b)section 14a(2)section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)section 40a(2)section 48section 40(a)

Judgments citing 96 Taxmann.com 275 (Calcutta HC) (v) CIT v. Jai Drinks (P) Ltd.

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

…would not be applicable on payments made to distributors / dealers. CIT vs. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association [2012] 348 ITR 378 (SC) CIT vs. Intervet India (P.) Ltd [2014] 49 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Jai Drinks (P) Ltd [2011] 336 ITR 383 (Delhi) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (ITA No. 7999/Mum/2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (ITA No. 586/Mum/2013) The Department had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (ITA No. 1148 of 2014) wherein the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal of the Department. 8.9 The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. PCIT before…

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2786/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarbajaj Auto Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Vs. Ofincome-Tax, Officer, Circle 3(4), Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aadcb2923M Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondednt Assessee Represented By Ms. Vasantiben Patel, Advocate Department Represented By Shri. Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13/03/2025 For Assessment Year 2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) In Respect Of Target Discount, Consistency Discount & Cash Discount Provided To Spare Parts Dealers: Rs. 55,18,08,851: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 55,18,08,851 Under Section 40(A)(Ia), For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source Under Section 194H, Computed At 30% Of The Following Discounts Provided To Spare Parts Dealers: (A) Target Discount Of Rs. 90,72,94,817; (B) Consistency Discount Of Rs. 72,72,96,107; & (C) Cash Discount Of Rs. 20,47,71,915. In Doing So, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In The Following Respects: 2. In Incorrectly Observing That The Appellant Has Paid Commissionto Its Dealers Under The Cover Of Sales Discounts. 3. In Observing The Appellant Is Offering Discounts On Completion Of Periodic Targets Which Is Computed As A Percentage Of Sales Turnover & Therefore Akin To Commission.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…tamps Supply and Sales Rules themselves contemplate that what the licensed vendor does, while taking delivery of the stamp papers from the Government offices, is purchasing the stamp papers. 10. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court inCIT Vs Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 383 (Delhi), while considering the similar issue (question of law) that when agreement between the assessee and distributor was clearly stipulated to be an agreement on principle to principle basis, payments made by assessee to distributor were as incentive and discounts and not commission liable for deduction at source under section 194H. We further…

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 1937/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 194CSection 194HSection 2Section 250Section 253(1)Section 30Section 40

…(SC) (ii) Singapore Airlines Ltd vs CIT [2022] 144 Taxmann.com 221 (SC) (iii) CIT vsIntervet India (P) Limited [2014] 364 ITR 238 (Bombay HC) (iv) PCIT vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 275 (Calcutta HC) (v) CIT vs Jai Drinks (P) Ltd [2011] 336 ITR 383 (Delhi HC) :-16-: ITA. No: 1937/Chny/2024 & SP No: 40/Chny/2024 (vi) Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202 (Gujarat HC) (vii) Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd vs DCIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 187 (Gujarat HC) (viii) Nokia India (P) Ltd vs.DCIT [2020] 114 taxmann.com 442 (Delhi Tribunal) 6.2 Per contra, the ld…

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

…e concessionaire but the products are sold and ownership vests and is transferred to the concessionaires. This by itself does not show and establish principal and agent relationship." 54. Similar view has been taken in the decision of CIT v. Jai Drinks [2011] 336 ITR 383 (Del.) wherein it was held that "From the agreement, it was evident that the distributor was to purchase products at pre-determined price from the assessee for selling the same within specified area.... That being the arrangement between the assessee and the distributor, it could not be said that the relation between them was that of principal an…

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…rs 2010-11 and 2011-12. Submission: The Hon’ble Tribunal in assessment year 2007-08 decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother Dairy Ltd. (ITA No. 1925/2010) and Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 383), holding that the discount in question is not in the nature of commission but an incentive for higher sale targets. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid finding was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein similar disallowance made by the assessing officer was deleted. While deciding the appeal for the…

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…ed authorised representative submitted that The Tribunal in assessment year 2007-08 decided the issue in favour of the appellant relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother Dairy Ltd. (ITA No. 1925/2010) and Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 383), holding that the discount in question is not in the nature of commission but an incentive for higher sale targets. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid finding was followed by the Hon‟ble Tribunal in the AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein similar disallowance made by the assessing officer was deleted. While deciding the appeal for the a…

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…d furniture in the course of sale of the milk and other products, they were carrying on the business only as agents of the Diary.” 45.12. The Hon’ble High Court held that in such circumstances S.194H is not attracted. 45.13. In the case of Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. 336 ITR 383 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as follows: “Held, dismissing the appeal, that a perusal of the agreement showed that the assessee had permitted the distributor to sell its products in a specified area. The distributor was to purchase products at a pre- determined price from the assessee for selling them. Both the assessee and the d…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…be deducted. 45. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in assessment year 2007-08 decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother Dairy Ltd. (ITA No. 1925/2010) and Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 383), holding that the discount in question is not in the nature of commission but an incentive for higher sale targets. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid finding was followed by the Tribunal in the AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein similar disallowance made by the assessing officer was deleted. While deciding the appeal for the assessment years…

M/S. CSN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2805/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 194Section 194HSection 40Section 68

…ection 194 H is missing in this case. It was a contract of sale with a guarantee period. The Ld. AR relied upon the following case laws:- 1. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India (2002) 257 ITR 202 (Guj.) 2. CIT Vs. Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd.(2011) 336 ITR 383 (Delhi) 3. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 94 TTJ 899 (ITAT Delhi) 4. CIT vs. Mother Dairy India Ltd. 358 ITR 218 (Del.) 5. Efftronics Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2016) 161 ITD 688 (Vishakha.) 6. Dy. CIT Vs. Laqshya Media P. Ltd. (2016) 160 ITD 35 (Mum.) 7. NMDC Ltd. Vs. ACIT (TDS) (2011) 7 ITR (Trib) 690 (Vishakha.) 6. The Ld.…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…cted. 39. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2007-08 decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother Dairy Ltd. (ITA No. 1925/2010) and Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 383), holding that the discount in question is not in the nature of commission but an incentive for higher sale targets. The Ld. AR further submitted that the aforesaid finding was followed by the Tribunal in the AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 wherein similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. 40. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment O…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…. 47. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2007-08 53 decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mother Dairy Ltd. (ITA No. 1925/2010) and Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 383), holding that the discount in question is not in the nature of commission but an incentive for higher sale targets. The Ld. AR further submitted that the aforesaid finding was followed by the Tribunal in the AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 wherein similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. 48. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment O…

M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 40

…utions India (P) Ltd., Vijayawada being given to the said dealers/ distributors for achieving certain sales target as fined by the assessee. 10. A similar case came up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of C1T-vs- Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 383, wherein the facts of the case are that the assessee therein permitted the distributor to sell its products in a specified area. The products were to be purchased by the distributor from the assessee and was allowed discount per case on the printed MRP. Thereafter, it is the responsibility of the distributor to sell those goods further to the con…

RAMESH HITECHK PUMPS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1096/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. ARV. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 194HSection 40

…r discount extended to dealers.In this regard, the AR relied on the following decisions: 1) CIT vs Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association [(2012) 348 ITR 378 (SC)] 2) CIT vsIntervet India P. Ltd [(2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom)] 3) CIT vs Jai Drinks P. Ltd [(2011) 336 ITR 383 (Delhi)] 4) CIT vs United Breweries Ltd [(2016) 387 ITR 150 (T&AP)]. Per contra, the DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We heard the rival contentions. The undisputed fact is that the assessee as a manufacturer has given the turnover discount for encouraging bulk purchases and it has been made to the dealers/ distributors on…

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…principal basis and not as agent of the appellant and only the concession in price of vehicles sold by dealers was compensated by the appellant at pre-determined price. He relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of Jai Drinks P. LTd.: 336 ITR 383 (Del.). He further submitted that Without prejudice, obligation to deduct tax at source under Chapter XVII-B arises (i) when the payee is identified and (ii) amount is receivable by payee during such year. He submitted that the provision was made on the basis of intimation as to the Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA…

MAHINDRA AUTOMOBILE DISTRIBUTOR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5185/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Shah &For Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 40

…ected.” 4.5. We are of the opinion that as sale took place between the assessee and the dealers, provisions of section 194 H would not be applicable in the case under consideration. Here, we would like to mention the facts and ratio of the case of Jai Drinks (336 ITR 383) decided by the Hon‟ble Delhi HC. In that case appeal was preferred against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The only question that arose before the Hon‟ble Court for consideration was as to whether as per the agreement deduct TDS. The entire dispute centred around the interpretation of the agreement entered into between the assess…