CIT v. United Breweries Ltd.

387 ITR 150High Court2016#4432 most cited

What is CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. authority for?

Incentives paid to retail dealers under a sales promotion scheme do not constitute commission, thus Section 194H of the Income-tax Act is not applicable.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. · Section 194H · commission · incentive · retail dealers · TDS · withholding tax

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 123

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 194HSection 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

contemporaneous datasection 194dsection 40a(i)section 194hsection 194a(1)section 210disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 92c(2)section 92c(3)interest under section 201(1a)section 271cbenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing CIT v. United Breweries Ltd.

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 670/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

…ives cannot be held as commission paid to the beneficiaries/purchaser where the question of rendering service does not arise. Our view is duly fortified by the decision of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. 387 ITR 150, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “9. From the facts noted by the Tribunal, in the order under appeal, it is evident that beer was sold by the respondent-assessee to the 17 I.T.A. Nos.668-671/Chny/15 APBCL, and the APBCL hand, in turn, sold the beer, purchased by them from the respondent-assessee, to retail dealers. Both these…

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 669/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

…ives cannot be held as commission paid to the beneficiaries/purchaser where the question of rendering service does not arise. Our view is duly fortified by the decision of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. 387 ITR 150, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “9. From the facts noted by the Tribunal, in the order under appeal, it is evident that beer was sold by the respondent-assessee to the 17 I.T.A. Nos.668-671/Chny/15 APBCL, and the APBCL hand, in turn, sold the beer, purchased by them from the respondent-assessee, to retail dealers. Both these…

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 668/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

…ives cannot be held as commission paid to the beneficiaries/purchaser where the question of rendering service does not arise. Our view is duly fortified by the decision of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. 387 ITR 150, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “9. From the facts noted by the Tribunal, in the order under appeal, it is evident that beer was sold by the respondent-assessee to the 17 I.T.A. Nos.668-671/Chny/15 APBCL, and the APBCL hand, in turn, sold the beer, purchased by them from the respondent-assessee, to retail dealers. Both these…

Shri Rahul Singhal, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1029/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1029/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke Shri Rahul Singhal, Income Tax Officer Vs. Prop.- Rahul Singhal, Near Nijam Ward- Tonk. House, Sanghpura, Purani Tonk. TAN/PAN No.: BLDPS 9341 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Creative Technotex (P) Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2035/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Vs M/S. Creative Technotex (P.) Ltd., Dcit, Circle-10(1), 73/29. Golf Club Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700033. Pan-Aadcc9167C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Respondent By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…-. The contention of Ld.AR was that no deduction of TDS is required on the reimbursement of expenses on sales promotion. The ld.AR placed on record a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana in the case of United Breweries Ltd. reported in 387 ITR 150 which held that discounts offered by the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Ltd.(in short “APBCL”) to the retailer [Assessment Year: 2012-13] could only be treated as sales promotion expenses, and not as commission and the relevant portion at para No.9 is reproduced hereunder below:- 9. “From the facts noted by the Tribunal, in the order unde…

M/S. Fusion Voice Solutions India Pvt.Ltd, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 40

…paid to the recipients, hence section 194H of the Act is not applicable in the assessee’s case and consequent disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act also is not applicable. The assessee relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. United Breweries Limited 387 ITR 150(AP). The assessee also relied on the decision of coordinate bench Kolkata in the case of DCIT, Circle-7, Kolkata Vs. M/s. BCH Electric Ltd, in ITA No.1336/Kol/12 dated 18.3.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09, wherein the coordinate bench held that while passing on the incentive to the dealers for the purpose of selling its goods beyond targe…

Ramesh Hitechk Pumps Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1096/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. ARV. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 194HSection 40

…on the following decisions: 1) CIT vs Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association [(2012) 348 ITR 378 (SC)] 2) CIT vsIntervet India P. Ltd [(2014) 364 ITR 238 (Bom)] 3) CIT vs Jai Drinks P. Ltd [(2011) 336 ITR 383 (Delhi)] 4) CIT vs United Breweries Ltd [(2016) 387 ITR 150 (T&AP)]. Per contra, the DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We heard the rival contentions. The undisputed fact is that the assessee as a manufacturer has given the turnover discount for encouraging bulk purchases and it has been made to the dealers/ distributors on principle to principle basis and there is no pre-determined…