How many judgments cite CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (370 ITR 728), spanning 2015 to 2025.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 14A, Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37.

CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.

370 ITR 728High Court2015#3584 most cited

What is CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. authority for?

Investment in a subsidiary is considered a business expenditure if made for commercial expediency and to further business objectives, and any resulting loss is treated as a business loss.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. · business loss · investment in subsidiary · commercial expediency · business operations · section 37 · section 28

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37 Section 43CA Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 2(19aa)section 72a section 36(2)section 43ca strategic investment transfer of capital asset interest free advances business expediency enduring benefit demerger section 10(34)source of source

Judgments citing CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…ritten submissions which have already been extracted in the impugned order. Notable amongst these decisions are the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Patnaik & Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (161 ITR 365); Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. (370 ITR 728); & Mumbai Tribunal in Camlin India Private Ltd. (ITA No.928/Mum/88). 8.5.3 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions and noted the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in United Breweries Ltd. V/s ACIT (ITA No.879 of 2007; 54 Taxmann.com 8) which held that deduction is allowable if there was a direct business nexus between the as…

National Research Development Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Research Development Vs. Dcit, Corporation, Circle-13(1), 20-22, Zamroodpur Community New Delhi Centre, Anusandhan Vikas, Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn2025K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niren Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…during that year, such losses were incurred. In the present case, neither there is a trading investment shown by the assessee nor there is transfer of shares by sale. The reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive Ltd [370 ITR 728] was also devoid of any merit. In that case, the investment was made for the purpose of business and there was sale of shares of the subsidiary company. Here there is no sale of the shares. The diminution in the value of the assessee was stated to be a business loss is also devoid of any merit because it can only apply to the long-term investment…

Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.10 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7371/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Essar Shipping Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-5(1)(2), 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. Mumbai-400034. Pan/Gir No.Aacce 3707 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…nce the same is on account of business and allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In order to support our proposition, reliance is placed on following decisions; a) CIT v. Phil Corporation Ltd [244 CTR 226 (Born)] b) CIT vs. Colgate Palmolive India Limited [(370 ITR 728) (Bom)] c) CIT v. Investa Industrial Corpn. Ltd. [(119 FUR 380) (Bom.)] d) CIT v. RPG Transmission Ltd. [359 ITR 673 (Mad)] e) Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd vs. PCIT. (ITA No. 2251/Mu m/2015) (Mumbai Tribunal) 35. In all the above cases, it has been held that if the investment is made in subsidiary for the purpose of business, the loss or expendit…

Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6396/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Circle 4(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-5, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ecision in the case of Ekta Promoters (supra), and also in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (supra), we uphold the action of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere.” 14. We find the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 370 ITR 728. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court at para 9 of the order reads as under:- “9. Upon a perusal of this material, we are unable to agree with Mr. Pinto that question 5.1 reproduced above is a substantial question of law. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances and the nature of the investment so also being for commercial exped…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Advani Hotels & Resort ( India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7036/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 7036/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ACIT-3(1)(1) M/s. Advani Hotels & Vs. Room No. 607 Resort (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6th Floor 18-A & B, Jolly Maker Aayakar Bhavan Chamber II, Nariman M.K. Road Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAACR6389Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jotwani Department by Shri Ashim Kumar Modi Date of Hearing 19.3.2019 Date of Pronouncement 3.6.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of…

Cosmos Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3730/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Cosmos Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Garg R. Kumar & Associates, Cas, Circle-3(1), 7, Advocate Chambers, New Delhi. Raj Nagar District Centre, Above Dominos Pizza, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaacc6682R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Sugar. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,36,93,430/- & Income U/S 115Jb At Rs.4,01,70,500/-. This Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 2(14)Section 37

…to case, but, what is important is that there must be an underlying motive to serve business interests of the assessee in making such investment. He submitted that the above decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 370 ITR 728 and the SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No.25987/2015 dated 21.12.2017. He also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.223/Cochin/2015, order dt.10.01.2017; & (ii) DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries, 84 TTJ AHD 22. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on t…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. Associate Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43BSection 73

…t permissible to be set off against the other income and accordingly added to the income of the assessee. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the loss by relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 728 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that loss on sale of shares of wholly owned subsidiary is business loss and not capital loss and thus allowed the appeal after considering the reply of the assessee. 6. The Ld. D.R. vehemently submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the loss which is not genuine and is of capi…

Asst CIT 10(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6073/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…converge on the point that disallowance of Rs.7.63 Lacs made by Ld. AO u/s 41(1) representing gain on repayment of deferral Sales Tax Liability stood covered in assessee’s favor in assessee’s own case for AY 2003-04 by the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court [370 ITR 728] and also by the order of this CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Tribunal for AY 2004-05 ITA No. 1855/Mum/2011 dated 08/05/2014, the copies of which has been placed on record. We find that Ld. AO has made the aforesaid disallowance relying on AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 and the same…

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palm Olive (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

ACIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sushrut Surgicals P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6859/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde-CIT-DR

Section 143Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6859/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-8(3) M/s. Sushrut Surgicals P.Ltd. Room No.217, Aayakar Bhavan C/o., GPS & Associates (C.A.) M.K. Marg Vs. A-1, Sindhi Niwas, Sitladevi Temple Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 016. PAN:AAACS 0…

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of 253, Dr.Annier Besant Road, Income Tax, Vs. Room No.559, 5Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacr1772R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B Pruseth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.2.2015, Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Setting Aside The Assessing Order & Directing The Ao To Withdraw The Deduction Allowed By The Ao In Respect Of Advance To Subsidiary Written Off & Charged To The Profit & Loss Account.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 256Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनधम/ M/s Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner of 253, Dr.Annier Besant Road, Income Tax, Vs. Room No.559, 5th floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN :AAACR1772R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant by Shri Yogesh Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent by Shri B Pruseth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 834/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Standard Chartered Bank Ddit (It)-2(1), बनाम/ 1St Floor, Scindia House, Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, N. M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 4681 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ankit Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

For Appellant: Shri Ankit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 243DSection 245

…ands clarified by the Hon’ble 3 Standard Chartered Bank vs. DDIT (IT) jurisdictional High Court per its decision in CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in ITA No. 2012 of 2011, dated 12.12.2012) since followed in CIT vs. Colgate Pamolive (India) Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 728 (Bom). The provision of section 243D shall, irrespective of the assessment year, apply whenever an assessment is made on or after 01.6.2003, date from which the provision has been made effective. The levy of interest could, again, only be for the period after 31.5.2003, as also clarified in CIT vs. Kerala Chemicals & Proteins Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR…

DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

ITA 1376/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 254

…eiterated before us the submissions made by the assessee in support of this issue before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 370 ITR 728 in support of the assessee’s case on this issue. 23. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly relied on the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of the assessee’s case on this issue and contended that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deciding this issue against the assessee being well reasoned and well founded deserves to be upheld.…