CIT v. Amway India Enterprises

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED (AS SUCESSOR TO MAHINDRA TWO WHEELERS LIMITED WHICH IN TURN IS SUCESSOR TO MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

…re. 2. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT Citation: (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC) Ratio: Commercial advantage of enduring nature may yet be revenue in character, depending on context and purpose of expenditure. 3. CIT v. Amway India Enterprises Citation: (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Delhi HC) Ratio: Expenditure on distributor incentives, market development, brand promotion and visibility held to be revenue in nature. 4. CIT v. Salora International Ltd. Citation: (2009) 308 ITR 199 (Delhi HC) Ratio: Advertisement expenses are revenue in nature; merely improving brand recognition does not convert them into capital expenditure…

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

…bunal in assessee’s own case as well as various other decision. a) ITATAY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1496/Mum/2007, b) ITATAY 2002-03 (ITA No. 3043/Mum/ 2010, c) Asahi Safety Glass vs Commissioner of Income-tax) (346 ITR 329) (Del HC) j) Amway India Enterprises vs CIT (346 ITR 341) (Del HC) g) Raychem RPG Ltd [2012] 346 ITR 138 (Bombay) h) Aker Powergas Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 1276 of 2017) (Bombay High Court) i) M/s. Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.3088/M/2019, Mumbai Tribunal) k) M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (As successor in business of erstwhile ING Vysya Bank Limited) (ITA No. 748/Bang/2011) (Bangalore Tribunal) d)…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F’ BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 1223/MUM/2010 (Assessment Year: 2005-2006) Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. (Formerly known as Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Maharashtra. [PAN:AAACB3370K] …………. Appellant Vs Additional Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 3(1), 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 4000 …………. Respondent & Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd. (Formerly known as Bajaj Auto Limited) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Maharashtra…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

…ORDER 2 ITA Nos. 1496 & 1420/Mum/2007 M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These cross appeals by Assessee and Revenue are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) – XXVII, Mumbai dated 29.11.2006 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') for A.Y. 2003-04 respectively. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1420/Mum/2007 for Α.Υ. 2003-04: - 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow 1/10th deduction amounting to Rs. 1,17,19,960/- u/s. 35D of the Act in respect of expenditure incu…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…ion software was for use in areas relating to financial accounting and taxation and that the expenditure on application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 346 ITR 341 CIT v Amway India Enterprise. The ld AR further submitted that out of the above total expenses of Rs.35,37,723, 6 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 the sum of Rs. 31,18,422 i.e. Sl.no.2,3, & 5 to 7 has been incurred on licences which are periodically renewable and…

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…ion software was for use in areas relating to financial accounting and taxation and that the expenditure on application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 346 ITR 341 CIT v Amway India Enterprise. The ld AR further submitted that out of the above total expenses of Rs.35,37,723, 6 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 the sum of Rs. 31,18,422 i.e. Sl.no.2,3, & 5 to 7 has been incurred on licences which are periodically renewable and…

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…ion software was for use in areas relating to financial accounting and taxation and that the expenditure on application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 346 ITR 341 CIT v Amway India Enterprise. The ld AR further submitted that out of the above total expenses of Rs.35,37,723, 6 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 the sum of Rs. 31,18,422 i.e. Sl.no.2,3, & 5 to 7 has been incurred on licences which are periodically renewable and…

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…ion software was for use in areas relating to financial accounting and taxation and that the expenditure on application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 346 ITR 341 CIT v Amway India Enterprise. The ld AR further submitted that out of the above total expenses of Rs.35,37,723, 6 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 the sum of Rs. 31,18,422 i.e. Sl.no.2,3, & 5 to 7 has been incurred on licences which are periodically renewable and…

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…ion software was for use in areas relating to financial accounting and taxation and that the expenditure on application software is allowable as revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 346 ITR 341 CIT v Amway India Enterprise. The ld AR further submitted that out of the above total expenses of Rs.35,37,723, 6 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 the sum of Rs. 31,18,422 i.e. Sl.no.2,3, & 5 to 7 has been incurred on licences which are periodically renewable and…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A No.6908/Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2117/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- Taxation Department, L&T tax, Range-2(2), Mumbai House N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001 PAN : AAACL0140P APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A No.6878 /Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2284/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner of vs Larsen & Toubro Limited Income-tax, Range-2(2), Taxation Department, L&T House Mumbai N.M. Mar…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 6(3),

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

…ssee brought to our notice various decisions which are in favour of the assesse viz., Raychem RPG Ltd. [346 ITR 138 (Bom. HC)], Kotak Securities Ltd., [346 ITR 349 (Bom. HC)], Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. [TS-640-HC-2011 (Delhi HC)], Amway India Enterprises [346 ITR 341 (Delhi HC)], DCIT v. Lubi Electricals O. Ltd. (ITA No. 1163/Ahd/92), Amway India Enterprises [111 ITD 112 (Delhi SB)], Empire jute Co. Ltd [124 ITR 1 (SC)], Media Video Ltd [122 Taxman 28 (Delhi ITAT)] and Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd in ITA No. 8489/Bom/88 (Mumbai ITAT) and requested the same be adopted in the case of assessee also. 98. Ld. DR veh…

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

…, he submitted, the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999-2000. In addition, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Asahi India Glass Ltd 346 ITR 329 (Del) 2. CIT VS Amway India Enterprise 346 ITR 341 (Del) 3. CIT vs Raychem RPG Ltd 346 ITR 138 (Bom) 26. The learned departmental representative fairly agreed that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. 27. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. It is evident, the disallowance has been made on the reasoni…

ACIT CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

…, he submitted, the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999-2000. In addition, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Asahi India Glass Ltd 346 ITR 329 (Del) 2. CIT VS Amway India Enterprise 346 ITR 341 (Del) 3. CIT vs Raychem RPG Ltd 346 ITR 138 (Bom) 26. The learned departmental representative fairly agreed that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. 27. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. It is evident, the disallowance has been made on the reasoni…