How many judgments cite CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd.?

94 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. (202 ITR 1014), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10A, Section 10AA, Section 10B, Section 115-O, Section 143(3), Section 194R.

CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd.

202 ITR 1014High Court1993#1199 most cited

What is CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. authority for?

Reimbursement of expenses, where there is no profit element included, does not constitute taxable income. Recoveries made by an assessee that merely reduce its cost, without netting off any income from expenses, are not income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. · 202 ITR 1014 · reimbursement of expenses · not taxable income · no profit element · cost recovery · taxability of reimbursements · Section 194R · Section 57(1) · Delhi High Court · gross receipts

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 10AA Section 10B Section 115-O Section 143(3)Section 194R Section 234B Section 234C

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 40(a)(ii)far analysis section 135 withholding tax prohibited by law

Judgments citing CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd.

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Veera Associates, Guntur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 332/VIZ/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Feb 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar SonowalFor Respondent: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40Section 40a

…of expenditure. For ready reference, we extract para Nos.21 to 24 of the order relied upon by the Ld. A.R as follows: “21. We have also carefully gone through the judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 1014. In the case before the Delhi High Court the assessee had agreement with M/s. ETAG, a Swiss Company, for rendering services. The assessee would receive a minimum sum of ` 1,20,000/- per month for the services rendered besides reimbursement of certain costs and expenditure incurred by the assessee while rendering the services as per the agreement…

Pfizer Products India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1535/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar &

Section 143(3)Section 40

…bly, the CIT(A) also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Industrial Engineering Projects, 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi) in coming to his decision to delete the addition. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. M/s. Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. 17. Before us, the ld. DR contended that the arrangement with M/s. Pfizer Ltd. clearly showed that assessee was availing of administrative and other services and, therefore, the pa…

Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Products (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1457/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar &

Section 143(3)Section 40

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)

…a) has held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be regarded as revenue in the hands of the payee. While deciding the issue, the Hon’ble High Court has followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Industrial Engg. Projects P. Ltd. (202 ITR 1014). It is a settled proposition of law from the various decisions of High Courts and particularly the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra) that when there is no element of income and the payment is only as a reimbursement of expenses incurred by the payee, then no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia).” In the appellant’s case it…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “जी जी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6159/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Wilhelmsen Ship Management(India) The Dy. CIT 8(3) 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Private Ltd. 31/32, 3rd Floor, “Apple Heritage” Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Sir M.V. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 003.…

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

…not taxable, since such reimbursements does not have any element of income therein. Reliance in this regard is placed on following decisions: • CIT vs Tejaji Farsaram Kharawalla Ltd.: 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 (A…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.6410/Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2008-09 M/s WNS North America Inc. vs ADIT(IT)-2(2) C/o. WNS Global Services P.Ltd. Scindia House, N.M.Rd, Gage 4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Ballard Estate, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli(W) Mumbai-400038 Mumbai -400079 PAN : AAACW5493Q (Assessee) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.6411/Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2009-10 M/s WNS Global Services(UK) Ltd. vs ADIT(IT)-2(2) C/o. WNS Global Services P.Ltd. Scindia House, N.M.Rd, Gage 4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Ballard Est…

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)

…ns Aktiongeselschaft [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom High Court) DIT v A P 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)…

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

…r: 2005-06), ITA No. 3673/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2006-07), ITA No. 628/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Xansa India Limited V ITO ITA NO 2577 & 4698/Del/2011/12 A Y 2004-05 and 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 ex…

Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cir.8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5970/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5970/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Pizi Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit , Circle-8(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road (Formerly Known As Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd.) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaccn 5346 B आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6084/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 वष" Dcit , Circle-8(2) Pizi Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 013. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:S/Shri M. Dayasagar-Cit-Dr & Vijay Kumar-Dr Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 27/07/2012,Of The Cit(A)-17,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee- Company,Engaged In The Business Of Consultancy & Detailing Services,Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/09/2008,Declaring A Loss Of Rs.34.73 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 27/12/2010,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Loss Of Rs. 10,00,82,110/-.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: S/Shri M. Dayasagar-CIT-DR and Vijay Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं पवन"सह,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Pawan Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5970/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" PIZI Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. DCIT , Circle-8(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd floor, M.K. Road (formerly known as PHL Pharma Pvt. Ltd.) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,…

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

…9 : (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 Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95 (SC); (17) Union of India & Anr. vs. A. Sanyasi Rao & Ors. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 81…

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

CIT vs. Dlf Commercial Project Corporation

ITA/627/2012HC Delhi15 Jul 2015

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 40

…ses was not taxable, learned senior counsel submits that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on the entire amount.Reliance is placed on this Court‟s rulings in CIT v. Industrial ITA 627/2012 & 507/2013 Page 7 Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd., 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi) and CIT v. Fortis Health Care Ltd., [2009] 181 Taxman 257 and the Supreme Court‟s decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC). Analysis and Conclusions: Question No. 1 12. The assessee was engaged in the business of development of land for various purposes. It acquired development rights fr…