CIT v. Reebok India Company

306 ITR 124High Court#17604 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 363,153 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Reebok India Company

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S K.S.Hotels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6858/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. M/S. K.S. Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Circle-14(1), C.R. Building, B-25, Connaught Place, New New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aacck4557B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv.

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 40

…case that the materials are supplied by the appellant nor has the AO brought any facts to the contrary rr, record to prove that the agreement falls within the expanded scope of a works contract envisaged u/s 194C. In the case of CIT vs. Reebok India Company (306 ITR 124) the Delhi High Court has held that when there is a finding of fact that the transaction between the assessee and the manufacturer is one of sale of goods and is not in the nature of a works contract and the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194 C read with Section 40(a)(ia), no substantial question of law arises for consideration. I am a…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3613/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…estion of not arise. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) BDA Ltd. vs. ITO, 281 ITR 89 (Bom.). (ii) CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd., 283 ITR 197 (Del.). (iii) Dr. Willmar Sochwade India (P) Ltd., ITA NO.160/2006 (Del. HC). (iv) CIT vs. Reebok India Co., 306 ITR 124 (Del.). (v) CIT vs. Glenmark Pharamceuticals Ltd., 324 ITR 199 (Bom.). (vi) DCIT vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (ITA 3703/D/05). (vii) Whirpool India Limited vs. JCIT, 109 TTJ 994 (Del.). (viii) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.1980/Del/2012 (Del Trib.). (ix) ITO (OSD) vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 166 ITD 631 (Del Trib.). (x) H.I. T…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3612/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

ITO (TDS) 3(4), Mumbai vs. Unichem Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4592/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4592/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4593/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito (Tds) 3(4),10Th Floor, Unichem Laboratories Ltd., Room No. 1011, Unichem Bhawan, S.V.Road, बनाम/ Smt. K.G.M. Ayurvedic Hospital 8, Prabhat Estate, Bulidng, Charni Road, Jogeshwari (West), V. Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai – 400 102. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacu0551B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Airiju Jai Karan(DR)

Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…s are the operating procedures. The CIT(A) held that the case of the assessee company is covered by the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Glenmark Pharmaceutical Limited 30 SOT 19(Mum.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Reebok India Company 306 ITR 124(Del.) in favour of the assessee company. The CIT (A) held that the action of the AO to hold the assessee company in default for not deducting tax on the commission paid and consequently levy of tax and interest amounting to Rs.1,81,78,062/-, being not sustainable was ordered to be deleted vide orders dated 11.04.2014. 6. Aggrieved by the orders o…

M/S Abhilash Garments & Estates P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1255/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt R. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201

…t liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194C. Further, when the work contract is for supply of material, it cannot be a contract for work and labour. The learned AR, than relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Reebok India Co.306 ITR 124 and submitted that a similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case by upholding the finding of the Tribunal that transaction between the assessee the manufacturer was that of purchase and sale of goods and not of work contract u/s 1494C of the said Act. The learned AR has also relied upon the decision of the co-ordina…