How many judgments cite CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.?

51 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (67 ITR 95), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 35(2AB), Section 37(1), Section 10A, Section 10AA, Section 10B.

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.

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 10A Section 10AA Section 10B Section 115-O Section 194R

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(vii)put to use section 92ca(3)fees for technical services section 195 section 9(1)section 40a associated enterprises section 201 associated enterprise dispute resolution panel section 40(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.

Granite Services International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 740/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…element of income embedded in such payments. 32. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that reimbursement of expenses with no income element embedded therein requires no tax deduction in India. (1) CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. [1968] 67 ITR 95 (2) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 313 ITR (AT) 263 (Mumbai) (SB) : 22 DTR 361 (Mumbai ITAT) (SB) (3) Expeditors International (India) P. Ltd vs. Addl. CIT [2010] 2 ITR 153 (Delhi ITAT) (4) Global E-Business Operations (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 52 SOT 457 (Bangalore ITAT). (5) CIT vs. Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. [2001] 114 Taxman 141…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 18 vs. M/S. Dlf Commercial Projects Corporation

ITA/231/2018HC Delhi23 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…ifically held that “reimbursement of expenses can, under no circumstances, be regarded as revenue receipt” and therefore, it is not liable to income tax. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd., [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC), where the Court had held that it is only the amount that exceeds the expenditure incurred by the agent that would be liable to tax. More recently, this Court in Fortis Page 2 of 5 Health Care Ltd. (supra) has also held that amount received towards reimbursement of expenses is not taxable under the Act. 19. In the instant case,…

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

…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…

M/S Business Park Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2310/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.S. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)

…R 377 (SC), department cannot put itself in the arm chair of a businessman. Further: • The entire expenditure has been reimbursed by M/s. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in view of agreement. In view of judgment of CIT Vs. Tejaji Forasram Kharwalla Ltd (1968) 67 ITR 95 (SC) and Delhi High Cour: in CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. 202 ITR 104 (Delhi) reimbursement under no circumstances can be held to be revenue receipt, So, there was no sale of land and in any case there was no stock-in-trade. • All payments are genuine and there is no necessity to insist for any further acknowledgment of the fac…

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

…lf of a resident in India, does not have any element of income and the same cannot be subjected to tax in India in the hands of the non resident. Reliance may be placed in this regard on the following decisions: • CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd.(1968) 67 ITR 95 (SC) • Van Oord : 189 Taxman 232 (Del-HC) • CIT vs. Fortis Health care Ltd.: 181 Taxman 257 (Del-HC) • Cholamandalam General Insurance Ltd.:.309 ITR 356 (AAR) DCIT V Xansa India Limited ITA No. 2283/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2004-05), ITA No. 3671/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2005-06), ITA No. 3673/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2006-07), ITA No. 628/D…

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

…014) (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 : (1996) 219 ITR 330 (SC); (18) CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); (19) CIT vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC); (20) Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. vs. Jt. CIT (Tribunal ‘D’ Bench, Delhi) (ITA No. 2024/Del/2001) (Asst. yr. 1998-99);…

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

M/S. Luxmi Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

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

ITA 1497/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini:Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 Luxmi Rice Mills, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, C/O Dharam Pal Gupta, Adv. Ward-4, Karnal. 7-Railway Road, Karnal. Pan: Aaafl 2868 D ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Permil Goel AdvFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 194Section 194CSection 40Section 40a

…specifically held that "reimbursement of expenses can, under no circumstances, be regarded as revenue receipt" and therefore, it is not liable to income tax. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd., [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC), where the Court had held that it is only the amount that exceeds the expenditure incurred by the agent that would be liable to tax. More recently, this Court in Fortis Health Care Ltd. (supra) has also held that amount received towards reimbursement of expenses is not taxable under the Act. 19. In the instant case, it is undisputed that M/s D…

At & S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. DCIT-Range-11, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…State of Andhra Pradesh 271 ITR 401 b) Nokia Networks NY [TS-700-High Court-2012 (Del)] c) B4U International Holdings Ltd case [TS-358-ITAT-2012 (Mum)] d) ITA No. 1448-1449/Kol/2008 (for AY 2002-03 & 2003-04) e) CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95 (SC) f) Skycell Communication Ltd. v. DCIT 251 ITR 53 g) Wipro Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 80 TTJ (Bang) ITA No.1160 & 2305/Kol/2013 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2004-05 DCIT Cir-11, Kol v. M/s AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 h) BSES Telecom Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 9281/Bang/2002) i) Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh 271 ITR 401 (SC) j) Cholamandalam MS…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S at & S India Pvt Ltd, Karnataka

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

CIT vs. Dlf Commercial Project Corporation

ITA/627/2012HC Delhi15 Jul 2015

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 40

…ecifically held that “reimbursement of expenses can, under no circumstances, be regarded as revenue receipt” and therefore, it is not liable to income tax. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court‟s decision in CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd., [1968] 67 ITR 95 (SC), where the Court had held that it is only the amount that exceeds the expenditure incurred by the agent that would be liable to tax. More recently, this Court in Fortis Health Care Ltd. (supra) has also held that amount received towards reimbursement of expenses is not taxable under the Act. ITA 627/2012 & 507/2013 Page 11 19. In…