CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.

67 ITR 95Supreme Court of India1968#2251 most cited

What is CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. authority for?

Reimbursement of expenses does not constitute income and is therefore not taxable as a revenue receipt. Such receipts are treated as a reduction of cost rather than income.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. · 67 ITR 95 · reimbursement of expenses · not income · not taxable · revenue receipt · cost recovery · section 40(a)(i) · foreign associated enterprise · disallowance for non-TDS

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 10ASection 10AASection 10BSection 115-OSection 194R
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(vii)put to usesection 92ca(3)fees for technical servicessection 195section 9(1)section 40aassociated enterprisessection 201associated enterprisedispute resolution panelsection 40(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.

DCIT, CC-19, New Delhi vs. Satya Prakash Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as well as the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1281/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153A

…n India. Even otherwise, since the aforesaid receipt were pure reimbursement, the same 61 ITA Nos.1277 to 1281/Del./2021 ITA Nos.723 & 724/Del./2021 CO Nos.55 to 58/Del/2021 was not income to be brought to tax. [Refer: CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: 67 ITR 95 (SC); DIT v. A.P. Moller Maersk A S: 392 ITR 186 (SC); CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del)] 17.30 On perusal of the above, it would be appreciated that the Revenue did not find any material, leave alone incriminating material suggesting accrual of alleged commission income and nexus of aforesaid receipt with that income. The allegat…

DCIT, CC-19, New Delhi vs. Satya Prakash Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as well as the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1280/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153A

…n India. Even otherwise, since the aforesaid receipt were pure reimbursement, the same 61 ITA Nos.1277 to 1281/Del./2021 ITA Nos.723 & 724/Del./2021 CO Nos.55 to 58/Del/2021 was not income to be brought to tax. [Refer: CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: 67 ITR 95 (SC); DIT v. A.P. Moller Maersk A S: 392 ITR 186 (SC); CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del)] 17.30 On perusal of the above, it would be appreciated that the Revenue did not find any material, leave alone incriminating material suggesting accrual of alleged commission income and nexus of aforesaid receipt with that income. The allegat…

DCIT, CC-19, New Delhi vs. Satya Prakash Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as well as the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1279/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153A

…n India. Even otherwise, since the aforesaid receipt were pure reimbursement, the same 61 ITA Nos.1277 to 1281/Del./2021 ITA Nos.723 & 724/Del./2021 CO Nos.55 to 58/Del/2021 was not income to be brought to tax. [Refer: CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: 67 ITR 95 (SC); DIT v. A.P. Moller Maersk A S: 392 ITR 186 (SC); CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del)] 17.30 On perusal of the above, it would be appreciated that the Revenue did not find any material, leave alone incriminating material suggesting accrual of alleged commission income and nexus of aforesaid receipt with that income. The allegat…

DCIT, CC-19, New Delhi vs. Satya Prakash Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as well as the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1278/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153A

…n India. Even otherwise, since the aforesaid receipt were pure reimbursement, the same 61 ITA Nos.1277 to 1281/Del./2021 ITA Nos.723 & 724/Del./2021 CO Nos.55 to 58/Del/2021 was not income to be brought to tax. [Refer: CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: 67 ITR 95 (SC); DIT v. A.P. Moller Maersk A S: 392 ITR 186 (SC); CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del)] 17.30 On perusal of the above, it would be appreciated that the Revenue did not find any material, leave alone incriminating material suggesting accrual of alleged commission income and nexus of aforesaid receipt with that income. The allegat…

DCIT, CC-19, New Delhi vs. Satya Prakash Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as well as the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1277/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153A

…n India. Even otherwise, since the aforesaid receipt were pure reimbursement, the same 61 ITA Nos.1277 to 1281/Del./2021 ITA Nos.723 & 724/Del./2021 CO Nos.55 to 58/Del/2021 was not income to be brought to tax. [Refer: CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: 67 ITR 95 (SC); DIT v. A.P. Moller Maersk A S: 392 ITR 186 (SC); CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del)] 17.30 On perusal of the above, it would be appreciated that the Revenue did not find any material, leave alone incriminating material suggesting accrual of alleged commission income and nexus of aforesaid receipt with that income. The allegat…

J and P Coats Limited, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1367/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…t) b) ABB Limited - AAR No 834 of 2009 (AAR) Decta v. CIT — 103 Taxman 525 (AAR) c) d) DIT v KRUPP UDHE GMBH — ITA No. 2626 of 2009 (Del) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (Now Dunlop Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: I…

J and P Coats Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1366/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…t) b) ABB Limited - AAR No 834 of 2009 (AAR) Decta v. CIT — 103 Taxman 525 (AAR) c) d) DIT v KRUPP UDHE GMBH — ITA No. 2626 of 2009 (Del) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (Now Dunlop Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: I…

J and P Coats Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1365/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…t) b) ABB Limited - AAR No 834 of 2009 (AAR) Decta v. CIT — 103 Taxman 525 (AAR) c) d) DIT v KRUPP UDHE GMBH — ITA No. 2626 of 2009 (Del) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (Now Dunlop Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: I…

J & P Coats Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2135/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…t) b) ABB Limited - AAR No 834 of 2009 (AAR) Decta v. CIT — 103 Taxman 525 (AAR) c) d) DIT v KRUPP UDHE GMBH — ITA No. 2626 of 2009 (Del) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (Now Dunlop Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: I…

J & P Coats Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 382/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…t) b) ABB Limited - AAR No 834 of 2009 (AAR) Decta v. CIT — 103 Taxman 525 (AAR) c) d) DIT v KRUPP UDHE GMBH — ITA No. 2626 of 2009 (Del) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (Now Dunlop Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: I…

J & P Coats Limited, U.K vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1493/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…t) b) ABB Limited - AAR No 834 of 2009 (AAR) Decta v. CIT — 103 Taxman 525 (AAR) c) d) DIT v KRUPP UDHE GMBH — ITA No. 2626 of 2009 (Del) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (Now Dunlop Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: I…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6343/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. K. N. Chary, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6343/Del/2013: Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Countrywide Promoters Tax, Central Circle-23, Pvt. Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, New Delhi-110055 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC5280H ITA No. 6304/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, Tax, Central Circle-23, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT…

Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6304/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. K. N. Chary, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6343/Del/2013: Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Countrywide Promoters Tax, Central Circle-23, Pvt. Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, New Delhi-110055 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC5280H ITA No. 6304/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, Tax, Central Circle-23, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT…

ACIT -25(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gepach International, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha, DR byFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…- S. 9(1)(vii): Reimbursement of expenditure under cost-sharing agreement does not constitute "income" and there is no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 reads as under- A perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in Tejaji Farasram KharawaUa Limited (1967) 67 ITR 95 (SC) clearly shows that Supreme Court has categorically held that the reimbursement of the actual expenses would not be taxable in the hands of the person receiving the reimbursements. The Karnataka High Court in a recent judgment in the case o fDIT v. Sun Microsystems India P. Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 63 (Karri) exactly on the similar issue interpretin…

M/S. Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Reliance is also placed in this regard on the following decisions in support of the proposition that pure reimbursements, without any mark-up do not contain any element of income and hence are not chargeable to tax. • CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: 67 ITR 95 (SC) • CIT v. Industrial Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.: 202 ITR 1014 9Del.) • CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.: 142 ITR 493 (Cal) • CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation: ITA 627/2012 and 507/2013 (Del.) • CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd.: [2014] 361 ITR 192 (Gujarat) • CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bo…

Harshna International, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3408/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 3408/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Harshna International, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O J.M. Kalra, Advocate, 206, D. Ward-19(4), R. Chambers, 12/56, Desh New Delhi Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefh7454F Assessee By : Sh. R. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 44A

…37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.” In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95 (supra). Their lordships observed as under: “Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95. In this case, part of the commission which was payable to the assessee was 5% which was in lieu of contingency expenses which the assessee had to meet such as commissi…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. at & S India Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…reported in 202 ITR 1014, therein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by taking the ITA No.515/KOL/2016, 974 & 975/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11] cue from the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd (67 ITR 95) has held that the reimbursement of actual expenses would not be taxable in the hands of the person receiving the reimbursements. Reference is invited to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. A.P. Moller Maersk reported in [2015] 59 taxmann.com 105 (Bombay). The assessee was a foreign compan…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S at & S Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…reported in 202 ITR 1014, therein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by taking the ITA No.515/KOL/2016, 974 & 975/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11] cue from the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd (67 ITR 95) has held that the reimbursement of actual expenses would not be taxable in the hands of the person receiving the reimbursements. Reference is invited to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. A.P. Moller Maersk reported in [2015] 59 taxmann.com 105 (Bombay). The assessee was a foreign compan…

Shri Dilip Kumar Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 86/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Sri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

…expenses were incurred on behalf of the Swiss company. On a reference to the Delhi High Court at the instance of the Revenue, the Delhi High Court after considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95 held that the reimbursable expenditure cannot form part of the taxable income. Accordingly it was held that the reimbursable expenditures are to be excluded from the total income In view of this judgement of the Delhi High Court, in our opinion, the reimbursable expenditure received by the assessee for the purpose of rendering services cannot form…

Spender Stuart (I) O, Ktd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7117/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ongesellschaft [2009] (310 ITR 320) (Bom)  DIT v. Krupp Udhe GmbH (354 ITR 1 73) (Bom)  CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (202 ITR 10 14) (Del)  CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd (142 ITR 493) (Cat)  CIT vs Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.: [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC)  Societe Generate [2017] (81 taxmann.com 244) ( Mumbai - 1TAT)  British Gas India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 1 1 taxmann.com 304) (Delhi - ITAT)  Fortis Healthcare Ltd. v.DDIT (45 SOT 190) (Chandigarh) 19. In the following decisions Mumbai Tribunal has held that payment of expenses at cost to group entity which paid the expenses on behalf of the…