How many judgments cite CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.?

125 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. (14 Taxmann 99), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 37(1), Section 43(1).

CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.

14 Taxmann 99High Court1983#834 most cited

What is CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. authority for?

Club entrance fees, if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). Furthermore, an order holding a deductor liable for TDS defaults under Section 201 must be preceded by an inquiry into the deductee's actual tax payment.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. · Section 37(1) · Section 201 · 296 ITR 682 · club entrance fees · business expenditure · revenue expenditure · TDS default · assessee-in-default · deductee tax payment · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

296 ITR 68211 Taxmann.com 106263 CTR 241

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 115JB Section 14A Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

Issues it is cited on

india company total income business interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2150/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

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

…35 (Mad), has held that club membership fees of director incurred to promote and foster the company's business are allowable as business expenditure. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 682 and Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT, in the case of ACIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. in ITA- 1789/Kol/2008.” 19. Ld.AR did not bring on record any evidences before us atleast to show that the said expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of development of its business. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, we set aside the order o…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…the SLP filed by Revenue against the order of Dr Delhi High Court (referred infra) allowing the claim for deduction representing 6 expenditure incurred on club membership. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: • Nestle India Limited: 296 ITR 682 (Del.) • CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.: 326 ITR 425 (Del.) - SLP filed by the Revenue dismissed in C.A No.6449/2012 • Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd v. CIT 195 ITR 682 (Bom) • CIT v. Citibank N.A.: 264 ITR 18 (Bom) • CIT v. Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom) • CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad) • Gujarat State Export Corporat…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…25 (Del.) allowing the ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 claim for deduction representing expenditure incurred on club membership, he argued that this expenditure is allowable as deduction. He submitted that besides being covered by the decisions in Nestle India Limited:296 ITR 682 (Del.), CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.: 326 ITR 425 (Del.), Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd v. CIT 195 ITR 682 (Bom);, American Express International Banking Corporation v CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom);, CIT v. Citibank N.A.: 264 ITR 18 (Bom), CIT v. Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom), CIT v. Sundharam Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad);, Gujarat State…

A.W. Faber Castell (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1037/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Mr. M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Mrs. Malathi Sridharan CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1037/Mum/2017 Assessment Yeas: 2012-13 A.W. Faber Castell (India) P. Ltd. DCIT 9 (1) (1). बनाम/ 801 Kamla Executive Park, Off M.V. Mumbai Pin: 40005 RD J.B. Nagar Andheri (E) Vs. Mumbai Pin: 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No AACCA3117H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant by : Mr. M.P. Lohia Mr. Pranay Gandhi Respondent by : Mrs. Malathi Sridharan CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / : 24/03/2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/04/2017 Date…

Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4726/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishicasio India Company Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 210, Okhla Industrial Estate Circle-3(1), Vs. (First Floor), Okhla Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacc3448H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. TM Shivakumar, CIT DR

Section 92B

…The expenditure cannot be disallowed wholly or partly because it would incidentally benefit a third person once the requirements of Section 37(1) were satisfied. Reference can be also made to the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 103/199 Taxman 321/11 taxmann.com 106, holding that the question of reasonableness or measure of expenses to be allowed cannot be a subject matter of adjustment or disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act. 55. Section 40A(2) clause (b) is a provision for computing arm's length price in case of two related parties as defined and applies even when t…

Anand Jhawar, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-34(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1099/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.R. Singh, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 40

…e submissions as made before the CIT-A and relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Samtel Colour Limited dated 30-01-2009 in ITA 1152/2008 and in 5 Anand Jhawar the case of CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd reported in (2008) 296 ITR 682(Del) and argued that the sums paid towards club membership has to be treated as business expediency for the purpose of business and allowable as deduction. 18. On the contrary, the ld.DR submits that the assessee admitted before the AO that the said amount was no where related to business activities of assessee and on such admission, the AO has…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)

Section 201Section 254Section 40

…s and cited decisions by the Learned AR after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground No. 5 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. " (emphasis supplied) vi. To the same effect are the following decisions: i. CIT vs. ITC Ltd: 263 CTR 241 (All) ii. ACIT vs. M/s. UBS Securities India Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 6451 of 2011 (Del) iii. DCIT vs. Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd: 23 taxmann.com 100 (Mum Tri.) iv. ACIT vs. Priyasha Meven Finance Ltd: v. DCIT vs. Anant Investment - ITA No. 6428/Mum/2010 (Mum) vi. CMS (India) Operations & Maintenance Co. (P.) Ltd: 19 taxmann.com 139 (Chen Tr…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…issed the SLP filed by Revenue against the order of Delhi High Court (referred infra) allowing the claim for deduction representing expenditure incurred on club membership. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 77 Nestle India Limited: 296 ITR 682 (Del.)  CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.: 326 ITR 425 (Del.)  Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd v CIT 195 ITR 682 (Bom);  American Express International Banking Corporation v CIT 258 ITR  601 (Bom); CIT vs Citibank N.A.: 264 ITR 18 (Bom)   CIT vs Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom)  CIT v Sundharam Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad);  Gujara…

M/S. Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6794/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Alok Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…the flow of foreign exchange under the FEMA and are, hence, not binding on the TPO for the computation of the ALP. 8.2. Having regard to the rival submissions made before us, we find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Nestle India (2011) 337 ITR 103 (Del) has answered this question by considering the provisions of section 40A(2) along with section 92, etc., of the Act. In 23 that case, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance u/s 40A(2), being the excessive and unreasonable payment of royalty to the associated concern, by holding that since the permission was given by the RBI, its reasonablene…

Avt Mc Cormick Ingredients Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 58/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…to the following decisions, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. ITA Nos.2167 to 2169/2013 :- 3 -: & 58/2015. (a) SKOL Breweries Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No.6175/Mum /2011 dt.18.01.2013(Mum) (b) CIT v. I\lestle India Ltd. (337 ITR 103)(Del.) 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in disapproving the adjustment to Arms Length Price (ALP), in respect of royalty, made by the A.O. on the basis of neqative variation. 3.2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the instant case deals with determination of ALP on spice transactions. 3.3. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the interna…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Avt Mc Cormick Ingredients Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2169/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Avt Mc Cormick Ingredients Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2168/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Avt Mc Cormick Ingredients Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2167/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

ACIT, Cir, 4(2), Mumbai vs. Prakash K.Shah Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5805/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Cir. 4(2), M/S Prakash K. Shah Shares & R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8B43/11, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Raja Bahadur Mansion, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400052 Pan: Aabcp3900A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist (DR)

Section 14ASection 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Cir. 4(2), M/s Prakash K. Shah Shares & R. No. 642, 6th Floor, Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8B43/11, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Raja Bahadur Mansion, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400052 PAN: AABCP3900A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri B. S. Bist (DR) Assessee by Shri N. R. Agarwal Date of hearing : 10.08.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2015 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue agai…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…e that the payment is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of goods or legitimate needs of the business, as has been held in the following decisions: − CIT vs. Modi Revlon (P.) Ltd.:210 Taxman 161 (Del) − CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd: 337 ITR 103 (Del.) − CIT vs. Forbes Tea Brokers: 315 ITR 405 (Mad.) − CIT v. Modi Xerox Ltd.: ITA No.31/2001/ Lex Doc Id 405888 (All.) − Voltamp Transformers (P) Limited v. CIT: 129 ITR 105 (Guj.) − CIT v. Aditya Medisales Ltd.: ITA No. 559/2009 (Guj.) − CIT v. Gopala Polyplast Ltd. : ITA NO. 265/2009 (Guj.) − JCIT v. ITC Ltd.: 112 ITD 57 (Kol.)(SB) − Jagda…

DCIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata vs. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and the cross objections of assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 886/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Biswas, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, & Shri Sujoy Sen

Section 143(3)

…ave already been disallowed in earlier ground which includes club expenses. Before us also, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above facts and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 682 (Del) and also other judgments. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd., supra has held as under: “Held, dismissing the appeal, that since the Assessing Officer had allowed a deduction of 50 per cent of Rs.2 lakhs under section 37(2) of the Act, the expenditure incurred was for business purposes otherwise the entire amount would…

DCIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata vs. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and the cross objections of assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 882/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Biswas, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, & Shri Sujoy Sen

Section 143(3)

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

ITA/16/2014HC Delhi16 Mar 2015

…a third person once the requirements of Section 37(1) were satisfied. Reference can be also 2015:DHC:2485-DB ITA 16/2014 & connected matters Page 42 of 142 made to the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT versus Nestle India Limited [2011] 337 ITR 103 (Del), holding that the question of reasonableness or measure of expenses to be allowed cannot be a subject matter of adjustment or disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act. 55. Section 40A(2) clause (b) is a provision for computing arm‘s length price in case of two related parties as defined and applies even when the conditions stipul…

CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA - 644 / 2012HC Delhi21 Nov 2012

Bench: Him, Concluded That No Price Adjustment Was Necessary. However, In The Course Of The Order He Stated As Follows: - 2012:Dhc:6913-Db

…(Appeals) rightly deleted the addition of `33.82 crore by relying on earlier orders of the Tribunal.” 4. This Court notices that the Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision, of the assessee itself, of this Court i.e. CIT v. Nestle India Ltd., (2011) 337 ITR 103 (Del.) pertaining to assessment year 2005-06 where an almost identical question had arisen. This Court had taken note of a similar approach – as noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned order and observed as follows: - “5. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are in pari-materia and a view has already been take…

CIT vs. At & T Communication Services India Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/526/2011HC Delhi19 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…AT&T Services in the month of November, 2001.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Thereafter, the Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) and referred to the decision relied upon by the respondent-assessee in CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2005) 275 ITR 1 (Del) and decision dated 9th May, 2007 in ITA No. 641/2006 titled Oracle Software India Ltd. vs. CIT. However, it was held that the tax had been deposited only in November, ITA No. 526/2011 Page 6 of 10 2001, and therefo…