CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

142 ITR 493High Court1983#1190 most cited

What is CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. authority for?

Pure reimbursement of expenditure does not constitute income in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services, therefore eliminating the obligation to deduct tax at source.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. · 142 ITR 493 · Section 195 · Section 9(1)(vi) · Section 9(1)(vii) · Section 40(a)(ii) · reimbursement of expenditure · not taxable · royalty · fees for technical services · DTAA · withholding tax

Also reported as

10 Taxmann 17925 ITD 136

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 10ASection 10AASection 10BSection 115-OSection 14(a)/14(b) of the Copyrights Act

Issues it is cited on

section 115wasection 10(4)section 2(43)section 115wsection 194a(1)section 2(28a)section 194a(3)section 44bbsection 40(a)(ii)section 44bsection 9(1)(vii)section 9(1)(vi)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

H.J. Heinz Company, Usa, Mumbai vs. ADIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6252/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleh. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Adit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-1(2) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation Mumabi New Delhi Aacch2144P (Respondent) (Appellant) H. J. Heinz Company, Usa Vs Acit 7Th Floor, D-Shivsagar Estate, Circle-2(1)(1), Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli International Taxation, Mumabi Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, E- Aacch2144P Z Block, Pratyaksh Kar (Appellant) Bhawan New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s there are various judgments on this issue where it is held that when there is only recoupment of expenses, there is no element of income and held the same cannot be held to be taxable in India. The decisions on reimbursements are as under:- " Dunlop Rubber 142 ITR 493 Kolkata High Court " DECTA 237 ITR 190-AAR " Siemens Aktiongesellschaft 189 Taxman 422-AAR Bombay High Court " ABB Ltd 189 Taxman 422-AAR " Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. 49 Taxmann.com 386 Kolkata ITAT 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee does not “Make Available” technical services of Heinz India and hence should not be taxable as Fees f…

The Nielsen Company (Us) Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(2), Mumbai

In the result the Ground No

ITA 4362/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhthe Nielsen Company (Us) Dcit (It) - 4(2) Llc, C/O Nielsen (India) Pvt. Mumbai. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Block-C, Godrej Vs. It Park, 02 Godrej Business, District, Phirojshah Nagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aacfj7526Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala With Sh. Madhur Agrawal (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Himanshu Sharma & Sh. Nishant Samaiya (Sr. Drs)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala with ShFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma and Sh. Nishant Samaiya (Sr. DRs)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 253Section 254(1)

…202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), held that reimbursement of expenses can, under no circumstances, be regarded as a revenue receipt. Similar issue had also come up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.'s case (142 ITR 493 Cal). Considering the above factual and legal discussions the Ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed. 30. Ground No. 5 relates to charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that no interest to be charged ITA No. 4362 Mum 2015 - The Nielsen Company (US) LLC prior to the amendment brought i…

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

…e, the reimbursements made by the Assessee are not at all income in the hands non-resident in terms of sec 5(2) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed-  ACITv. Mis. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 4252/Mum/2009.  CITv. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.[142 ITR 493 (Cal)}  Clifford Chance United Kingdom v. Dy. CIT [2002]82 ITD 106(Mum)  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V. Dy. CIT [2005) SOT 896 Mumbai ITAT and Mumbai Tribunal TISCO (ITA No. 3024/3025 of 1984 dated 31.5.2000)  Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [309 /TR 356)  No opportunity of being heard given to Assessee while making the above disall…

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

…e, the reimbursements made by the Assessee are not at all income in the hands non-resident in terms of sec 5(2) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed-  ACITv. Mis. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 4252/Mum/2009.  CITv. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.[142 ITR 493 (Cal)}  Clifford Chance United Kingdom v. Dy. CIT [2002]82 ITD 106(Mum)  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V. Dy. CIT [2005) SOT 896 Mumbai ITAT and Mumbai Tribunal TISCO (ITA No. 3024/3025 of 1984 dated 31.5.2000)  Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. [309 /TR 356)  No opportunity of being heard given to Assessee while making the above disall…

M/S. Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ts, without any mark-up do not contain any element of income and hence are not chargeable to tax. • CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: 67 ITR 95 (SC) • CIT v. Industrial Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.: 202 ITR 1014 9Del.) • CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.: 142 ITR 493 (Cal) • CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation: ITA 627/2012 and 507/2013 (Del.) • CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd.: [2014] 361 ITR 192 (Gujarat) • CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bombay) • CIT v. Microsoft Corporation Of India (P) Limited: 220 CTR 425 (Del) • CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman…

M/S. Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 6640/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ito (Tds), Ltd., Building No.8A, 4Th Vs Ward – 3(2) Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf New Delhi Phase-Ii, Gurgaon -122002 Pan Aaacs4781P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201

…Tribunal held that though there was a conflict between the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which was relied upon by the Commissioner of Income – tax (Appeals) and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co, Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 493 / [1982] 10 Taxman 179, it would follow a view which was favourable to the assessee, consistent with the judgment in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC). 6. The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not res integra in so far as this court is concerned. In CIT v. Siemens Akti…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. at & S India Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…that the aforesaid payment constitutes reimbursement of cost made by the appellant to its associated enterprise. In this connection, attention is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd reported in 142 ITR 493 wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has interalia held that if the foreign company is recovering the actual expenses from the Indian company then the same would not constitute income in the hands of the foreign company in India. Attention is further invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT v Industr…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S at & S Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…that the aforesaid payment constitutes reimbursement of cost made by the appellant to its associated enterprise. In this connection, attention is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd reported in 142 ITR 493 wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has interalia held that if the foreign company is recovering the actual expenses from the Indian company then the same would not constitute income in the hands of the foreign company in India. Attention is further invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT v Industr…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4474/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 60Section 61Section 62

…for the year under consideration. The Ld. A.R in support of his claim that reimbursement of costs cannot be regarded as the income of the assessee, relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd. 142 ITR 493 (Cal). It was further submitted by the Ld. A.R that the A.O had erred in enhancing the income while framing the assessment under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 254, as against the income as stood assessed in the course of the original assessment proceedings. Reliance in support of the aforesaid contention was placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court o…

Spender Stuart (I) O, Ktd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7117/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ial pronouncements also supports our view. 18.  CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] (310 ITR 320) (Bom)  DIT v. Krupp Udhe GmbH (354 ITR 1 73) (Bom)  CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (202 ITR 10 14) (Del)  CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd (142 ITR 493) (Cat)  CIT vs Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC)  Societe Generate [2017] (81 taxmann.com 244) ( Mumbai - 1TAT)  British Gas India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 1 1 taxmann.com 304) (Delhi - ITAT)  Fortis Healthcare Ltd. v.DDIT (45 SOT 190) (Chandigarh) 19. In the following decisions Mumbai Tribunal has held that payment of expen…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation to sharing the fruits of research and development as cost for impairing the information. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the amount received by the foreign company from the Indian company did not constitute income assessable under the Act. The assessee ther…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation to sharing the fruits of research and development as cost for impairing the information. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the amount received by the foreign company from the Indian company did not constitute income assessable under the Act. The assessee ther…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation to sharing the fruits of research and development as cost for impairing the information. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the amount received by the foreign company from the Indian company did not constitute income assessable under the Act. The assessee ther…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation to sharing the fruits of research and development as cost for impairing the information. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the amount received by the foreign company from the Indian company did not constitute income assessable under the Act. The assessee ther…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation to sharing the fruits of research and development as cost for impairing the information. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the amount received by the foreign company from the Indian company did not constitute income assessable under the Act. The assessee ther…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.475/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 IT(TP)A No.134/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 & SA No.08/Coch/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.475/Coch/2016) SA No.25/Coch/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.134/Coch/2016) M/s.US Technology The Dy.Commissioner of Resources Private Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle – 2(1) 721/722, NILA, Trivandrum. Techno Park Campus Trivandrum-695 581. PAN : AAACU6085C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Raghunathan S., Advocate Respondent by : Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.475/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 IT(TP)A No.134/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 & SA No.08/Coch/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.475/Coch/2016) SA No.25/Coch/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.134/Coch/2016) M/s.US Technology The Dy.Commissioner of Resources Private Limited Vs. Income-tax, Circle – 2(1) 721/722, NILA, Trivandrum. Techno Park Campus Trivandrum-695 581. PAN : AAACU6085C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Raghunathan S., Advocate Respondent by : Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR…

M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, Usa, Kolkata vs. CIT, (It & Tp), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263Section 4Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Pricewaterhouse Coopers -vs- C.I.T. (IT & TP), LLP USA Kolkata [PAN : AAAAP 4377J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan, AR For the Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 06.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 03.03.2015 of C.I.T- (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing) passed u/s 263 of the…

ITO 27(3)(5), Navi Mumbai vs. Vijay S. Poojari, Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 760/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushotam Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40Section 44A

…considered as his sales or turnover. The appellant has also relied on the following decisions to support his stand. (1) DCIT 72 Mumbai vs. M/s. Rank Shipping Agency Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) (2) Rolls Royce India Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) (3) CIT Vs. Dunlop Co.Ltd, (142 ITR 493) 9. The appellant also relied on the Circular No.452 to support its claim the commission agents do not include the sales effected on behalf of the principals. The Assessing Officer did not find the submission of the appellant acceptable. The Assessing Officer felt that the turnover should include the reimbursement of expenses from his clients. Ac…

ITO, WD-58(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Itd-Itd Cem Jv (Consortium of Itd Itd Cementation), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1462/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Disha Kedia, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 133A(1)Section 194ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…he Act and relied on the catenae of orders passed by Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi and Ahmedabad Benches of ITAT Tribunal for not charging of TDS as reimbursement of actual expenses. The assessee also placed reliance in the case of Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. reported in 142 ITR 493 (Calcutta) of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta for the proposition that the reimbursement of expenditure is not an income in the hands of assessee. Considering the facts of the case with that of case laws relied by the assessee, the CIT(A) sought remand 9 report from the AO. The AO stated that the section 194A does not distinguish between the payme…