CIT v. Career Launcher India Ltd.

358 ITR 179High Court2013#4905 most cited

What is CIT v. Career Launcher India Ltd. authority for?

Payments made under an agreement involving profit sharing through joint efforts are not considered payments for "carrying out any work" for the purpose of attracting TDS under Section 194C and consequential disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Career Launcher India Ltd. · Section 194C · Section 40(a)(ia) · TDS · disallowance · profit sharing · joint efforts · franchisee agreement · carrying out work

Also reported as

250 CTR 240
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 194jsection 192section 194csection 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)section 194section 19section 40first appealsection 10search and seizure

Judgments citing CIT v. Career Launcher India Ltd.

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

…nd was not in addition or in lieu of dividend linked to percentage of shares held by Mr. Munjal in the appellant company. We draw support for the aforesaid view from the recent decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Carrier Launchers India Ltd. vs. ACIT: 358 ITR 179, where, too, the High Court held that where the commission is paid in lieu of services provided by the employee and the amount of commission has no link with the dividend that the recipient would be entitled to as a shareholder, such payment is outside the purview of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The relevant observations of the High Court are as…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C L Educate Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground number of the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 5820/DEL/2013[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh.Yatendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201(1)

…ee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that no tax deduction at source is required to be made on payment made to franchise in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case reported at 358 ITR 179. Therefore against this ground the revenue is in appeal. 11. The LD DR relied on the order of the AO. The ld. AR submitted that this matter is covered in favour of assessee in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2005-06 by decision of Honourable Delhi high court which ld. CIT (A) has followed. He further submitted that there is no change…

V.S. International P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1581/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 1581/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. V.S. International The Acit-4(3), Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 237, Sardar Griha Bldg., 198, Lokmanya Tilak Road, Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 7292C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Aarti Vissanji ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vivek Batra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :07.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :11.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 36(1)(ii)

…there was no evidence to show that any services were rendered by the Directors. The Ld. Counsel stated that the facts of the case in hand are clearly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Career Launcher India Ltd. 358 ITR 179. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no denying that the assessee has paid commission to its Directors which is around 1.40% of the increased sales. A perusal of the factual matrix shows t…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Convertech Equpments Pvt. Ltd

ITA/669/2012HC Delhi03 Dec 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(ii)

…f investment and is paid to all its shareholders equally. It was thus held that if the commission is paid for actual services rendered, section 36(1)(ii) will not apply. This decision was followed by this Court in CIT v. Career Launcher India Ltd. (2012) 250 CTR 240 (Del). These decisions apply to the present case. The substantial question of law in ITA No.669/2012 is answered in favour of the assessee. The appeals and the pending applications are consequently dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J R.V.EASWAR, J DECEMBER 03, 2012 hs 2012:DHC:7169-DB…