How many judgments cite CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.?

152 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (331 ITR 192), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 10(37), Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 145A(b).

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 263 Section 143(3)Section 145A(b)Section 45(5)Section 145A

Issues it is cited on

section 145b section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 10(37)enhanced compensation section 145a compulsory acquisition section 264 lack of enquiry section 143(3a)

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

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Ricoh India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as above

ITA 4700/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(2), Vs. M/S. Ricoh India Ltd. 801, 8Th Floor, Ackruti Star, Midc Mumbai (Appellant) Central Road, Nr. Marol Telephone Exchange, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 (Respondent) Pan : Aaacr4151J

For Appellant: Shri Suresh MalikFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…judgments of (i) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of R. Raveendran Pillai, 332 ITR 531; (ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Areva T&D India Ltd., 345 ITR 421; (iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 331 ITR 192; and (iv) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. (supra) in 6 M/s. Ricoh India Ltd. holding that goodwill is an intangible asset qualifying for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. We find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid action of CIT(A), which is hereby affirmed. As a consequence, we affirm the ultimate directi…

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

…ITA 194/2004 Page 1 of 17 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-12. + ITA 194/2004 HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. versus JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI…

ACIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Cadbury India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5876/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: S/Shri N.K.Chand-CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…Before us, the ld.Sr.Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the issue is now covered by the series of judgments including the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High 5470 & ors.cadbury Court in the case of CIT V/s HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD [2011] 331 ITR 192 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court after considering the facts that the specific payment for goodwill represents the consideration for marketing and trading reputation, trade style and name, marketing and distribution, territorial know-how, including information of the territory and allowed the depreciation on such payment on intangible assets.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Teletech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the Department as well as

ITA 3873/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Acit Vs Bharti Teletech Ltd., Circle 2(1), D-195, Room No. 398D, Okhla Industrial Area Phase I, C.R. Building, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb3989M) C.O. No. 72/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 3873/Del/2012) Ay: 2004-05 Bharti Teletech Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 2(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Dr Respondent By: Shri Amit Bhalla, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2016

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Anuragi, DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bhalla, CA

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

…nd no. 3 of the Department’s appeal regarding depreciation on goodwill is concerned, it is seen that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Del) wherein in paras 21 to 24, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed the issue of depreciation on good will at length as under:- “21. It is worth noting, the scope of Section 32 has been widened by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 whereby depreciation is now allowed on intangible assets acquired on or after 1st April, 1998. As per Section 32…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n High Court in the case of CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292." 13. In the written submissions the assessee-society has also relied on the following cases:- (i) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal, 320 ITR 674 (Del.) (ii) CIT vs. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.). (iii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT ITR 83 (Del.). (iv) CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj.). (v) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del.). (vi) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 (SC). (vii) CIT vs. Munjal Castings, 303 I…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…as erred in not following Court decisions including that of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. SMIFS Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192. 4.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in lightly disregarding various submissions filed by the Appellant during the course of appellate proceedings and in upholding the disallowance by wrongly and mechanically relying on decision in orders relating to subsequent years without citing any valid reasons. Further, the Appellant craves leave to add, alter…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263

…claim of depreciation from Rs.25.9 crs. to RS.6.06 crs. The assessee relied upon the following decisions before Tribunal :- i. Techno Shares and Stock Ltd. 327 ITR 323 ii. B. Raveendran Pillai v CIT 332 ITR 531 iii. CIT v Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd. 331 ITR 192 iv. Areva T & D India Ltd. v DCIT 345 ITR 421 During the year under consideration the assessee has continued the claim of depreciation in respect of the above agreement. It was submitted that when the order u/s.263 for A.Y.2009-10 is set aside, the claim for depreciation as allowed is continued for subsequent years as the facts and the agreements…

Commissioner vs. Mis Bharti Teletech Ltd

ITA/496/2014HC Delhi15 Apr 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 32

…as „CIT (A)‟) on the basis of the previous years‟ reasoning which had accepted the depreciation claims. The CIT (A) also considered the relevant statutory provisions and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 331 ITR 192. The ITAT by the impugned order affirmed the findings of the CIT (A). 5. It is urged by Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel that given the nature of the definition of asset under Section 32 (1), Explanation 3 (b), only intangible assets which are akin to those enumerated, i.e., know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, fran…

Sharp Business System vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III

ITA/492/2012HC Delhi05 Nov 2012

…ired by the assessee, for itself, after payment of the non-competing fee was akin to license or other similar rights in which depreciation had to be given. Reliance was also placed upon the ruling in CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd. v. CIT 2011 331 ITR 192 (Del) where it was held that intangible advantages or assets in the form of know-how, trade-style, goodwill etc. were depreciable assets. 7. In response, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that in order to determine whether a non-competing fee is an expenditure that confers capital advantage, one of the important considerations has…

Areva T & D India Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the assessee and

ITA-315/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2012

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)(ii)

…alternatively argued on behalf of the assessee that goodwill per se is eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages (P) Ltd., 331 ITR 192 in this behalf. 7. Per contra, on behalf of the Revenue it was urged that the business or commercial rights acquired by the assessee did not fall within the definition of intangible assets and that none of the business or commercial rights purportedly acquired by the assessee fell within the definition of intangible assets as given in Ex…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet

ITTA/250/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN