What is CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. authority for?

A deduction claimed under Section 80-IB (or 80-IA) cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-filing or delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB, as such procedural requirements can be treated as directory, and delays may be condoned.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.?

118 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 143(1), Section 44AB, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 80IA(7).

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503)

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5655/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 251Section 44A

…and the net effect is Nil. Thus, the recasted Profit & Loss a/c as per provisions of Sec. 145A did not result in any modification in net profit. The AR of the appellant also relied on the judicial pronouncements -vs.- Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal), S. Kumars Ltd. -vs.- IGT I.T.A. no.2547/M/02, CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) and Hawkins Cookers Ltd. -vs.- ITO (2008-TIOL-480- ITAT-Mum). The AR of the appellant further submitted that similar addition made by the AO has been deleted by my predecessor in AY 2001-02 to AY 2005-06. 6.3 I have considered the A.O.’…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Epl Ltd, Mumabi

ITA 2646/MUM/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2646/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Epl Ltd., Top Floor Times Tower, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaace-1568-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jay Bhansali ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154

…profit would not arise. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. 261 ITR 275. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. 264 ITR 503. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. 318 ITR 116 following the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mahavir Alluminimum Limited 297 ITR 77 held that to give effect to section 145A if there is a change in the closing stock at the end of the year, there must necessarily be a corresponding…

Hike Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4314/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4313/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4314/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 28Section 30Section 32

…courts have duly set aside such proposition :- (i) DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263; (ii) Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. 195 taxman 256 (Del.); (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd – 372 ITR 605 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal) (v) Polygel Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 198 10. In view of the aforegoing decisions and precedents, it is clear that assessee cannot be disallowed the expenditure on the ground that it is a brand building exercise and is capital in nature. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in fa…

Hike Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4313/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4313/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4314/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 28Section 30Section 32

…courts have duly set aside such proposition :- (i) DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263; (ii) Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. 195 taxman 256 (Del.); (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd – 372 ITR 605 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal) (v) Polygel Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 198 10. In view of the aforegoing decisions and precedents, it is clear that assessee cannot be disallowed the expenditure on the ground that it is a brand building exercise and is capital in nature. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in fa…

M/S Roopa Steam Calendering Works, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.284/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Roopa Steam Calendering The Dy. Commissioner Of Works, Income Tax, 647/1, Btra Ginning Compound, Vs. Centralized Processing Center, Palladam Road, Bengaluru. Tirupur – 641 605 [Pan: Aadfr-6895-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

…enith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2Q031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. :- 6 -: 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements w…

The ACIT, Circle 2, Bharuch vs. M/S. Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2277/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.4703, 4704, 4705/1-4, Vs Circle-2, Bharuch. Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharch – 393002. Pan: Aabcj 8258 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…t compliance by relying upon the following decisions: i. Sudha Sharma vs. ITO – 46 TTJ 276 (Del)/44 ITD 351 (Del) ii. CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries – 201 ITR 325 (Guj) 11 Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch iii. CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd – 254 ITR 503, 508-09 (Cal) iv. CIT vs. Magnum Export (P) Ltd – 262 ITR 10, 12, 19 (Cal) v. CIT vs. Silver Mines – 170 Taxation 590, 590-91 (Raj) vi. CIT vs. G. Krishnan Nair – 259 ITR 727, 732 (Ker) vii. ITO vs. Novelty Garments – 256 ITR 688 (Raj) 10. The ld.AR of the assessee also filed following documents on record: 1 Acknowledgement of Return of Income an…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1162/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…3 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1161/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…3 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…3 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1159/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…3 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1158/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 35ASection 43BSection 69C

…3 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB (10) etc. of the Act. In case of CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT Vs. Krishnan Nair 259 ITR 727, CIT Vs. Godha Chemicals P. Ltd. 353 ITR 679 and Murli Export Vs. CIT 238 ITR 257 while interpreting the analogous provision of section 80HHC (4) the court held that furnishing of audit certificate alongwith return of income is not mandatory provision, but only directory one, and can be filed at any time before…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…(SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Haw…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…(SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Haw…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…(SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Haw…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…(SC); vi) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala: 91, ITR 18 (SC); vii) Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT : 66 ITR 647 (All.); viii) Abdul Qayume vs CIT: I 84 ITR 404 (All); ix) Nirmala L Mehta vs CIT: 269 ITR 1 (Bom); x) CIT vs Berger Paints: 254 ITR 503 (Cal); xi) R. B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand vs CIT: 81 ITR 409 (All); xii) CIT vs Enron Expat Services Inc : 327 ITR 626 (Uttkhd); xiii) Smt. Snehlata Jain v. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K); xiv) S.R. Koshti v. CIT: 276 ITR 165 (Guj.); xv) DCIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani: 85 ITD 734 (Nag); xvi) Indo Java & Co. v. IAC: 30 ITD 161 (Delhi SB); and xvii) ITO v. GE Haw…

Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3167/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5774/Del./2014 A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon Stay No. 288/Del/2020 (ITA No. 5774/Del./2014) A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon ITA No.6128/Del./2014 A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3125/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5774/Del./2014 A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon Stay No. 288/Del/2020 (ITA No. 5774/Del./2014) A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon ITA No.6128/Del./2014 A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6128/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5774/Del./2014 A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon Stay No. 288/Del/2020 (ITA No. 5774/Del./2014) A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon ITA No.6128/Del./2014 A…

Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5774/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5774/Del./2014 A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon Stay No. 288/Del/2020 (ITA No. 5774/Del./2014) A. Y. : 2009-10 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Formerly known as Michelin Circle-6(1) India Tyres P. Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, New Delhi Gurgaon ITA No.6128/Del./2014 A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue is

ITA 2946/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

…sessee observed that even if some enduring benefit arose out on such expenditure but without specifically establishing the fact, the addition could not be made on the basis of presumption. Reliance was placed on the decision of CIT vs Berger Paints (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The assessee had also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Nestle India Ltd. vs DCIT [2009] 27 SOT 9 (Delhi), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein the advertisement expenses were treated as revenue expenses. The CIT(A) applied the said ratio als…

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.

What is CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Epl Ltd, Mumabi

Hike Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

Hike Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi

M/S Roopa Steam Calendering Works, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The ACIT, Circle 2, Bharuch vs. M/S. Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi