How many judgments cite CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.?

95 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (142 ITR 493), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 35(2AB), Section 37(1), Section 10A, Section 10AA, Section 10B.

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.

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 10A Section 10AA Section 10B Section 115-O Section 14(a)/14(b) of the Copyrights Act

Issues it is cited on

section 115wa section 10(4)section 2(43)section 115w section 194a(1)section 2(28a)section 194a(3)section 44bb section 40(a)(ii)section 44b section 9(1)(vii)section 9(1)(vi)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

JCIT, Chennai vs. C.H.Robinson Worldwide Freight India P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1181/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1181/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Mr.T. Banusekar, CA

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 90

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी !ड.एस. सु"दर $संह, लेखा सद"य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1181/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s.C.H.Robinson Worldwide Corporate Circle-1(2), Freight India Pvt. Ltd., Lokesh Towers 2nd Floor, Chennai-600 034. No.18, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AACCC 9617 L] (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent) : अपी…

Wilhemsen Ship Management (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 6159/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran- DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 3Section 36

…t and in the present case the Tribunal had found that the assessee received no sums in excess of expenses incurred. A similar issue had also come up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 493 (Cal). The learned Division Bench was answering the following question: Whether,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts received by the assessee (English company) from MIs. Dun lop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. (Indian company) as per agreement dated July 29, 1957, constituted income assessable to tax?" 58. On considering the iss…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Apollo International Group Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 223/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 195Section 35ASection 40

…61 ITR 95 (SC) • CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Private Limited: 202 ITR 1014 (Del.) • Van Oord ACZ India P. Ltd. v. CIT: 323 ITR 130 (Del.) -ft>n C fc**ft2 • CIT v. Fortis Healthcare ltd.: 181 Taxman 257 (Del.) ~ fa \^ • CIT v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd.: 142 ITR 493 (Calcutta) ^ • CIT v, SG Pgnatale: 124 ITR 391 (Guj.) • CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: 310 ITR 320 (Bom.) • Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT: 313 ITR 263 (AT)(Mumbai) (SB) • HNS India VSAT Inc. vs. DDIT: 95 ITD 157 (Del ITAT) • Compagnie Francaise D'Etudes Et De Construction vs. IAC: 8 ITD 215 • DCIT vs. Lazard India (P) Ltd.: 41 SOT 72 (Mu…

Asst DIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1406/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 234B

…non-taxability of reimbursement of expense: 1. CIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (310 ITR 320) (Bom) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs DCIT 313 ITR 263(Mum)(SB) 3. CIT v. Industrial Engineering. Projects (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Del) 4. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd 142 ITR 493 (Cal) 5. JDITvs. Krupp UHDE GMBH[2009] 124 TIJ 219·(Mum ITAT) 6. DDIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.132 TTJ 566 (Mum ITAT) 7. Clifford Chance Vs DCIT 82 ITD 106 (Mum) 6 WNS 8. HCL Infosytems Ltd Vs OCIT 76 TTJ 505 (Delhi ITAT) 6.1. The Assessee also relied upon the order of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. (80 TTJ 191), wherein…

Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6411/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 234B

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla & Ita No. : 7589/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Van Oord Dredging & Marine Vs Addl. Director Of Income-Tax Contractors Bv, (International Taxation)-Range-2, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, First Floor, Room No.108, Cst Road, Kalina, Scindhia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 098 Mumbai -400 038 "थयी लेखा सं.:Pan : Aaach 3500 M अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Applicant By : "ी Shri Porus Kaka Respondent By : "ी Jshri N K Chand सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-10-2016 आदेश Order अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य: Per Amit Shukla, J.M.: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2012, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In Pursuance Of Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Vide Order Dated 29.09.2012, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Aw, The Learned Ao, Based On Directions Of Drp Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.24,80,29,144 (I.E. Management Service Fees Of Rs.22,57,89,998 & Reimbursement Of 2 Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors Bv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…Moller Maersk AS [2015] 374 ITR 497 (Bom High Court) CIT v Expeditors International(India) (P) Ltd.[2012] 209 Taxman 18 (Delhi High Court) CIT v Industrial Engineering Products Pvt Ltd [1993] 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi High Court) CIT v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1983] 142 ITR 493 (Calcutta High Court) 11. As regards the issue and addition made on account of reimbursement of salary received by VODMC from VOIPL by treating it as ‘FTS’ under Article 12(5), Mr. Porus Kaka submitted that, first of all the said receipts are not taxable under section 10(6)(viii) because these are purely salary income earned by an employee who i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2283/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ankur Garg, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 40Section 40a

…2008-09 Page 43 of 91 • CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd.: 202 ITR 1014 (Del- HC) • ACITvs. Modicon Network (P) Ltd.: (2007) 14 SOT 204 (Del) • Bangalore International Airport Ltd. vs. ITO: 116 ITD 446 (Bang) • Rolls Royce India Ltd. vs. ITO: 25 ITD 136(Del) • Clifford chance vs. DCIT: 82 ITD 106(Mum) • Coca Cola India Inc. vs. ACIT: 7 SOT 224(Del) 11.69 It cannot be anybody's case that the pure reimbursement of expenditure would constitute an income chargeable to tax in India in the hands of Xansa-UK. In my view, since the payment being mere reimbursement of the amount of subsistence allowance…

Stempeutics Research Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1450/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 195Section 201(1)

…chargeable to tax in India. Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions : i. Director of Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) Vs. Sun Microsystems India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.35/2010 Dt.2.6.2014 (Kar) ii. CIT Vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) iii. Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. Director of Income Tax (2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC) 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the meaning of FTS as provided in the Act as well as under DTAA clearly brings their payment under the ambit of FTS. The learned Departmental Representative has rel…

M/S. Future Distributors, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Kolkata - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

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

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

…(ii) CIT –vs.- Hardarshan Singh (2013) 350 ITR 427 (Del.); (iii)CIT –vs.- Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 192 (Guj.); (iv) Dolphin Drilling Limited –vs.- ACIT (2009) 121 TTJ 433 (Del.); (v) CIT –vs.- Dunlop Rubber Co. Limited (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Kol.). 15. The ld. counsel for the assessee then referred to the provisions of section 194G and section 204 and submitted that as per clause(iii) of section 204- ‘person responsible for paying’ ‘winnings from lottery or crossword puzzle’ under section 194B and commission etc. on sale of lottery tickets under section 194G is the payer himself, i…

ITO, International Taxation, Kolkata vs. M/S. A T & S India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 259/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, A.R

Section 195Section 195(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 259/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 ITO.Wd-International Taxation -vs.- M/s. AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAECA 2930 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant Shri Niloy B.Som, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri Anup Sinha, A.R. Date of Hearing : 15.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 30.10.2015 of CIT(A)-22, Kolkata, relating to AY 2004-05. 2. The grounds…

M/S Balmer Lawries & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer(It) WD-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2079/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)

…been held in a number of decisions, that reimbursement of cost has no component of income and therefore, tax is not required to be deducted on the same. Some such decisions are by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal), by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Bangalore International Airport Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) (2008) 307 ITR (AT) 295 (Bang), by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Wizcraft International Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 135 TTJ 647 (Bom) and Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture v. ACI…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…192 ITR 40 (Kar); (10) V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Ltd. vs. Deputy Controller, RBI & Ors. (1991) 93 CTR (Kar) 49 : (1991) 187 ITR 381 (Kar); (11) CIT vs. Best & Co. (P) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC); (12) CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1982) 29 CTR (Cal) 25 : (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal); (13) CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 73 : (1993) 202 ITR 1014) (Del); (14) CIT vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (2001) 165 CTR (Bom) 67 : (2000) 245 ITR 823 (Bom); (15) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 564 : (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC); (16) CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawal…

Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5217/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

At & S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. DCIT-Range-11, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…of income chargeable to tax u/s. 4(1) of the Act. The following case law were also submitted:- i) Lufthansa Cargo India Private Ltd 140 Taxman 1 (AT-Del) ii) GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.v. (2010) CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) iii) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. 142 ITR 493 (Cal) iv) Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) TIOL 187 v) CIT v. Fortis Health Care Ltd. 181 Taxman 257 vi) DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 41 SOT 72 (Mum) vii) Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture v. ACIT (2010) 5 ITR 75 (Mum) viii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIt (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 263 (Mum) It was also submitted that the section 90(2)…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S at & S India Pvt Ltd, Karnataka

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)