CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT

381 ITR 237Reported decision#15759 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1431/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 8o

…n by Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in catena of subsequent decisions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to t…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1350/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 8o

…n by Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in catena of subsequent decisions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to t…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Colgate – Palmolive (India) Ltd., Addl. Commissioner of Income Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3), Mumbai. Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400076. PAN No. AAACC4309B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, AR Revenue by : Mr. Michael Jerald, DR Last Date of Hearing : 06/03/2020 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. Th…

Colagate-Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8428/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhcolgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Additional Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre, Income Tax-10(3) Main Street, Vs. Hiranandani, Gardens, Pawai, Mumbai-400076 Pan: Aaacc4309B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Perci J Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT- DR)
Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 92B

…by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in catena of subsequent decisions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to…

Asst CIT 10(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6073/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…n by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in catena of subsequent decisions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on beh…

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palm Olive (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…n by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in catena of subsequent decisions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on beh…

CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (381 ITR 237) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax