CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.

331 ITR 192High Court2011#652 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.

152

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · debatable issue · two possible views · AO's accepted view · PCIT powers · erroneous assessment · lack of enquiry · 331 ITR 192

Also reported as

198 Taxmann 1049 Taxmann.com 104

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 263Section 143(3)Section 145A(b)Section 45(5)Section 145A

Issues it is cited on

section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 10(37)enhanced compensationsection 145acompulsory acquisitionsection 264lack of enquirysection 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.

Chander Bhan, Hansi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4112/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Chander Bhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 566/14, Jind Road, Ward-1, Hisar, Saniyan Mohalla, Haryana Hansi Distt., Hisar, Haryana Pan: Ayypb8380N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. We adopt the above extracted detailed reason…

Subhash Chander, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2356/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2356/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Subhash Chander, Vs Pcit, House No. 1476, Vivek Nagar, Rohtak, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axlpc0177G Assessee By : Sh. Kuldip Khera, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20, Arises Against The Pcit, Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023–24/1062890142(1) Dated 19.03.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. We adopt the above extracted detailed reason…

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldaya Ram, Vs. Pcit, Village Patauda Khera, Rohtak Po Patauda, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Avrpr0237L Assessee By : Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 6. We adopt the above extracted detailed reason…

Shiv Narayan, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Shiv Narayan, Vs. Dcit, H. No. 137, V & Po, Circle-3(1), Shikohpur, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan:Akfpn6891B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Shiv Narayan, Vs. DCIT, H. No. 137, V & PO, Circle-3(1), Shikohpur, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana PAN:AKFPN6891B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Mr. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA Sh. Suraj Bhan, Adv. Department by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.04.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

Genus Power Infrastructures Limitted, Noida vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Centeral), Lucknow

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…167 (Del.); CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 236 CTR 476/194 Тахтап 57; Hari Iron Trading Company vs. CIT, 263 ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194 Тахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher Limited 294 ITR 310 (Del.) CIT vs. Ashish Rajput, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del.); CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bom.); and CIT vs. PNB Finance and Industries Limited, 236 CTR 1 (Del.).…

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9 Shastri Lal 6. I adopt the above extracted d…

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9 Dilbag Singh 6. I adopt the above extracted…

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons HUF, Vs Pr. CIT, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAIHM9927L Assessee by : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises…

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEMPC0965Q Assessee by : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This ass…

Om Prakash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1674/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Om Prakash Vs. Principal Cit 45 Matana Majra, Rohtak Fatehabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Cmspp7173D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

…w that when two views are plausible and the issue is also a debatable one, the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction as held by 10 Om Prakash, Fatehabad Vs. Pr. CIT the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del), in view of the above discussion, we find no error in the order made under Section 154 of the Act by rectifying the mistake apparent from the record and the Ld. PCIT committed error in quashing the said order by invoking the provision of Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly we quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT by allowing the Ground…

Jai Parkash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2018-19 JAI PARKASH, VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSOINER OF BHATTU ROAD, INCOME TAX, ROHTAK NEAR ANAJ MANDI, FATEHABAD – 125050 HARYANA (PAN: AMYPK5328D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Respondent by : Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 08.04.2024 Date of pronouncement : 15.04.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, Rohtak dated 27.3.2023 passed u/s. 2…

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Gulshan Kumar, Vs. Pr. CIT M/s. Gulshan Variety Store, Rohtak. Thana Road, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050. PAN AIUPK6598B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Department by : Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 28/11/2023 Date of 13/02/2024 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.03.2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (“PCIT”…

Purnimasareen, Panipat vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Smt. Purnima Sareen Vs. Pr. Cit, 744-745, Model Town, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana-132103 Pan Bokps2116C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Smt. Purnima Sareen Vs. Pr. CIT, 744-745, Model Town, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana-132103 PAN BOKPS2116C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Department by: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 21.11.2023 Date of 29.01.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.03.2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…

Pawan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Prcit, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. Prcit, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surajbhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 28

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. PrCIT, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Surajbhan Nain, Advocate Shri Mahfuzur Rahman, CA Department by: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 22.11.2023 Date of 24.01.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground nos

ITA 3903/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…st of acquisition of customer’s/ bottler’s list was treated as capital asset and depreciation was allowed after scrutiny assessment and Hon’ble Delhi High Court while quashing u/s 263 for A.Y. 2003-04 vide CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) held that business information/ records including customer list constitute an intangible right which is eligible for depreciation. On this basis and relying judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. in SLP 30646/2011 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. OswalAgro Mills : 341 ITR 467 (Del), DCIT vs. Gujarat Na…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground nos

ITA 3902/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…st of acquisition of customer’s/ bottler’s list was treated as capital asset and depreciation was allowed after scrutiny assessment and Hon’ble Delhi High Court while quashing u/s 263 for A.Y. 2003-04 vide CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) held that business information/ records including customer list constitute an intangible right which is eligible for depreciation. On this basis and relying judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. in SLP 30646/2011 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. OswalAgro Mills : 341 ITR 467 (Del), DCIT vs. Gujarat Na…

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result ground nos

ITA 2701/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…st of acquisition of customer’s/ bottler’s list was treated as capital asset and depreciation was allowed after scrutiny assessment and Hon’ble Delhi High Court while quashing u/s 263 for A.Y. 2003-04 vide CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) held that business information/ records including customer list constitute an intangible right which is eligible for depreciation. On this basis and relying judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. in SLP 30646/2011 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. OswalAgro Mills : 341 ITR 467 (Del), DCIT vs. Gujarat Na…

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result ground nos

ITA 2700/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…st of acquisition of customer’s/ bottler’s list was treated as capital asset and depreciation was allowed after scrutiny assessment and Hon’ble Delhi High Court while quashing u/s 263 for A.Y. 2003-04 vide CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) held that business information/ records including customer list constitute an intangible right which is eligible for depreciation. On this basis and relying judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. in SLP 30646/2011 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. OswalAgro Mills : 341 ITR 467 (Del), DCIT vs. Gujarat Na…

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground nos

ITA 6606/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…st of acquisition of customer’s/ bottler’s list was treated as capital asset and depreciation was allowed after scrutiny assessment and Hon’ble Delhi High Court while quashing u/s 263 for A.Y. 2003-04 vide CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) held that business information/ records including customer list constitute an intangible right which is eligible for depreciation. On this basis and relying judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. in SLP 30646/2011 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. OswalAgro Mills : 341 ITR 467 (Del), DCIT vs. Gujarat Na…

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground nos

ITA 6605/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…st of acquisition of customer’s/ bottler’s list was treated as capital asset and depreciation was allowed after scrutiny assessment and Hon’ble Delhi High Court while quashing u/s 263 for A.Y. 2003-04 vide CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) held that business information/ records including customer list constitute an intangible right which is eligible for depreciation. On this basis and relying judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. in SLP 30646/2011 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. OswalAgro Mills : 341 ITR 467 (Del), DCIT vs. Gujarat Na…