CIT v. DLF Commercial Project Corporation

379 ITR 538High Court2015#12757 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 31(i)Section 32(1)(iia)
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. DLF Commercial Project Corporation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…ting reimbursement of the expenses the same were not taxable and it is only when there was surplus that the same should be taxed. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation: 379 ITR 538 (Delhi). The relevant extract of the decision are as below: “19. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, this court derives support from the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 638/217 Taxman 114/ [2014] 361ITR 192, where the facts were similar to those in the present case. Th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…ting reimbursement of the expenses the same were not taxable and it is only when there was surplus that the same should be taxed. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation: 379 ITR 538 (Delhi). The relevant extract of the decision are as below: “19. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, this court derives support from the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 638/217 Taxman 114/ [2014] 361ITR 192, where the facts were similar to those in the present case. Th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…ting reimbursement of the expenses the same were not taxable and it is only when there was surplus that the same should be taxed. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation: 379 ITR 538 (Delhi). The relevant extract of the decision are as below: “19. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, this court derives support from the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 638/217 Taxman 114/ [2014] 361ITR 192, where the facts were similar to those in the present case. Th…

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…ollowing decisions: - i. CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 493 (Delhi) ii. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 177 Taxman 82 (Bom HC) iii. CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects (P.) Ltd. [1993] 202 IATR 1014 (Delhi) iv. DLF Commercial Project Corporation 379 ITR 538 (Delhi) v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC) vi. DECTA 237 ITR 190 AAR vii. ABB Ltd. 189 Taxmann 422 viii. Ernst and Young Ltd. 49 taxmann.com 386 (Kolkata ITAT) 13. We carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant. On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was ma…

SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 933/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd., Assistant/Deputy 503 & 504, 5Th Floor, B Wing, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Hiranandani Fulcrum, Sahar Tax (Tds)-2(2), 717, Smt. Road, Andheri East, Mumbai. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Charni Road (W), Mumbai. Pan No. Aalcs9822Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. F.B. Andhyarujina, Mr. Gautam Thacker, Mr. Yazdi P. Jijina & Ms. K.R. Daviervala, Ars Revenue By : Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad, Cit-Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2019

For Appellant: Mr. F.B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 7

…, GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), DIT (Int. Tax.) v. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S [2017] 392 ITR 186 (SC), CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects P. Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 1014 (Del), CIT v. DLF Commercial Projects Corporation [2015] 379 ITR 538 (Del), ADIT (IT) v. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. [2011] 8 ITR (Trib) 334 (Mum) . Further reliance is placed by the Ld. counsels on the decision in East India Hotels Ltd. v. CBDT (2010) 320 ITR 526 (Bom), All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants v. CBDT (1995) 214 ITR 276 (Guj), Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 435…

SHRIRAM JAWAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR UDYOG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 430/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…hout any element of profits or mark up, then the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable. For our aforesaid view, we find support by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation (2015) 379 ITR 538 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held reimbursement of expenses cannot be regarded as revenue receipts and hence tax need not be deducted at source from such payments. We also find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Karma Energy Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 264 (Bom) has held that when the payments made to a group company was…

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3296/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…he TPO under the provisions of section 92CA (3) and have been held to be at arm’s length for the relevant year and no adverse inference has been drawn.  Assessee placed reliance on the following judgments- Case Law Citation DLF Commercial Project Corporation 379 ITR 538 Walchand & Co. Private Limited 65 ITR 381 J.K. Woolen manufactures Limited 72 ITR 612 EKL Appliances Limited 24 taxman 199 29. Ld. CIT (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A), specifically pages 20 to 23, para 5.1 to 5.3 of the order. 30. We have heard the rival submission and have perused the material placed before us whi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JAS FORWARDING WORLD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3222/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…he TPO under the provisions of section 92CA (3) and have been held to be at arm’s length for the relevant year and no adverse inference has been drawn.  Assessee placed reliance on the following judgments- Case Law Citation DLF Commercial Project Corporation 379 ITR 538 Walchand & Co. Private Limited 65 ITR 381 J.K. Woolen manufactures Limited 72 ITR 612 EKL Appliances Limited 24 taxman 199 29. Ld. CIT (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A), specifically pages 20 to 23, para 5.1 to 5.3 of the order. 30. We have heard the rival submission and have perused the material placed before us whi…

CIT v. DLF Commercial Project Corporation (379 ITR 538) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax