CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division

315 ITR 150High Court#6636 most cited

What is CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division authority for?

Expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business are deductible, even if they provide an incidental or indirect benefit to group companies. Disallowance cannot be based solely on such incidental benefit.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Salora International Ltd. · business expenditure · incidental benefit · group companies · deductibility of expenses · wholly and exclusively for business

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1522/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…& 1522/Del/2014 5 (iii) CIT Vs. Usha Iron & Ferro Metal Corporation Ltd., 296 ITR 140 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT Vs. Liberty Group Marketing Division 315 ITR 125 (P & H); (vi) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 315 ITR 150 (AT) (Del.) (VII) CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 308 ITR 263 (Guj.) 4.3 On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that though during the year the assessee had capitalized a sum of Rs.1,79,77,181/- under the head tangible / know-how and brand development in the books and had claimed depreciation thereon. However, after realizing t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…& 1522/Del/2014 5 (iii) CIT Vs. Usha Iron & Ferro Metal Corporation Ltd., 296 ITR 140 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT Vs. Liberty Group Marketing Division 315 ITR 125 (P & H); (vi) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 315 ITR 150 (AT) (Del.) (VII) CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 308 ITR 263 (Guj.) 4.3 On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that though during the year the assessee had capitalized a sum of Rs.1,79,77,181/- under the head tangible / know-how and brand development in the books and had claimed depreciation thereon. However, after realizing t…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Cisco Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 508/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sri.Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzafar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.505/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.Cisco Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. The Asst.Commissioner of Brigade South Parade Income-tax, Circle 2(1)(1) v. No.16 Mahatma Gandhi Road Bangalore Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AABCC0258Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(TP)A No.508/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Asst.Commissioner of Income- M/s.Cisco Systems (India) tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Pvt.Ltd. v. Bangalore Brigade South Parade No.16 Mahatma Gandhi Road Bangalore – 560 001. (Appellant) (Resp…

Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sri.Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzafar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM IT(TP)A No.505/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.Cisco Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. The Asst.Commissioner of Brigade South Parade Income-tax, Circle 2(1)(1) v. No.16 Mahatma Gandhi Road Bangalore Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AABCC0258Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(TP)A No.508/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Asst.Commissioner of Income- M/s.Cisco Systems (India) tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Pvt.Ltd. v. Bangalore Brigade South Parade No.16 Mahatma Gandhi Road Bangalore – 560 001. (Appellant) (Resp…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. ( Erstwhile Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited), Baroda vs. The ACIT, Cent.Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 702/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…n agreement with the findings of the earlier Bench (supra) that such a selected party should be least complex and should not be unique. (ii) Development Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 136 TTJ 129 & followed by Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448/315 ITR 150 (Delhi): The issue before the Tribunal was that the CIT (A) had confirmed the adjustments to the international transactions of the assessee with its AEs based at Bahamas, USA without considering the submissions and the financial of the AEs explaining the facts etc. In case of the merits of the case for international transactions entered by the as…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…n agreement with the findings of the earlier Bench (supra) that such a selected party should be least complex and should not be unique. (ii) Development Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 136 TTJ 129 & followed by Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448/315 ITR 150 (Delhi): The issue before the Tribunal was that the CIT (A) had confirmed the adjustments to the international transactions of the assessee with its AEs based at Bahamas, USA without considering the submissions and the financial of the AEs explaining the facts etc. In case of the merits of the case for international transactions entered by the as…

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…n agreement with the findings of the earlier Bench (supra) that such a selected party should be least complex and should not be unique. (ii) Development Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 136 TTJ 129 & followed by Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448/315 ITR 150 (Delhi): The issue before the Tribunal was that the CIT (A) had confirmed the adjustments to the international transactions of the assessee with its AEs based at Bahamas, USA without considering the submissions and the financial of the AEs explaining the facts etc. In case of the merits of the case for international transactions entered by the as…

DCIT, C-5, Ludhiana vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby

ITA 589/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1500/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-5, Vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ludhiana Pvt Ltd., G.T.Road, Hero बनाम Nagar, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 36

…relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- (a) Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) (b) CIT Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company (P) Limited 123 ITR 538 (Mumbai.) (c) M/s Sony India (P) Limited Vs. DCIT [ITAT Del] 315 ITR 150 (Delhi.) (d) CIT Vs. Indian Visit.com(P)Ltd (2009)176 Taxman 164 (Delhi) ITA Nos. 1500-c-17 & 589-C-2018 M/s Satyam Auto Components Pvt ltd., Ludhiana 5 (e) In view of the above stated facts, it has been requested that the expenditure may be allowed as revenue expenditure. Alternatively, it has been submitted that the expenditure on training to…

DCIT, C-5, Ludhiana vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby

ITA 1500/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1500/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-5, Vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ludhiana Pvt Ltd., G.T.Road, Hero बनाम Nagar, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 36

…relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- (a) Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) (b) CIT Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company (P) Limited 123 ITR 538 (Mumbai.) (c) M/s Sony India (P) Limited Vs. DCIT [ITAT Del] 315 ITR 150 (Delhi.) (d) CIT Vs. Indian Visit.com(P)Ltd (2009)176 Taxman 164 (Delhi) ITA Nos. 1500-c-17 & 589-C-2018 M/s Satyam Auto Components Pvt ltd., Ludhiana 5 (e) In view of the above stated facts, it has been requested that the expenditure may be allowed as revenue expenditure. Alternatively, it has been submitted that the expenditure on training to…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…; CIT v Nestle India Ltd. 337 ITR ITR 103 (Del. HC) (affirmed by the Supreme • Court) • CIT vs Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) • CIT vs Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd: 200 Taxman 43 (Del. Mag.) (HC); • Sony India (P) Ltd vs. Dy. CIT : 315 ITR 150 (Del ITAT) • Star India (P) Ltd.: 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum.) In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. AR that the assessing officer erred in disallowing Rs. 17,29,22,979/- in the impugned assessment order, which calls for being deleted in toto. Without prejudice to submission above, the Ld. AR submitted that even if the company were to recover the cost of ch…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Genisys Intergrating Systems

ITA/17/2012HC Karnataka09 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…d., 26 SOT 226 3. MSS India Pvt.Ltd., 32 SOT 132 4. Customer Services India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 30 SOT 486 5. Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 2009-TIOL-214- ITAT-PUNE 6. Development Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Vs DCIT 23 SOT 455 7. Sony India Pvt.Ltd., 315 ITR 150 8. Cumins India Ltd., Vs DCIT ITA NO.277 & 1412/PN/07 9. TNT India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 10 Taxman.com 161 10. Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd Vs DCIT 2010-TII- 54-ITAT-DEL-TP 13.1 The learned DR however, relied on the orders of the authorities and submitted that 5% is not the standard deduction, but it is the range within which if the ALP…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…C); , CIT v Nestle India Ltd. 337 ITR ITR 103 (Del. HC) (affirmed by the Supreme Court), CIT vs Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd: 195 Taxman 256 (Del), CIT vs Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd: 200 Taxman 43 (Del. Mag.) (HC); , Sony India (P) Ltd vs. Dy. CIT : 315 ITR 150 (Del ITAT), Star India (P) Ltd.: 103 ITD 73 TM (Mum.) he argued that since the entire expenditure as incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for purposes of its business, any incidental/ indirect benefit to the group company(ies), it is settled ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 law, cannot be the basis for disallowing the expenditure in the hands o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2585/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, F.C.A.; &For Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. D. R

…335 ITR 29 (Del.); (iii) CIT Vs. Usha Iron & Ferro Metal Corporation Ltd. 296 ITR 140 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT Vs. Liberty Group Marketing Division 315 ITR 125 (P & H); (vi) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 315 ITR 150 (AT) (Del.) (VII) CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. 308 ITR 263 (Guj.) 4.3 On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that though during the year the assessee had capitalized a sum of Rs.1,79,77,181/- under the head tangible / know-how and brand development in the books and had claimed depreciation thereon. However, after realizing…

M/S Arrow Electronics India Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assesssee’s appeals are dismissed, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross-Objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Preethi Garg, CIT-DR
Section 148

…red to what the AO under identical circumstances has computed. The appellant has also relied on the following judgments in support of the working capital adjustment: (a) Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACT (119 TTJ 721) (b) Sony India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (315 ITR 150) (C)Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd (Delhi Tribunal in ITA No.1885/PM/2007). (d) Mentor Graphics P. Ltd., [109 ITD 101] [2007] [Delhi] IT(TP)A.209,210,617 to 619,COs.31 to 33/B/2011 Page - 23 After considering the appellant's arguments on these issues only two issues have to be determined. (i) Whether the determined margin of ALP for three year…

Magma Design Automation I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed / treated as allowed for

ITA 1279/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10A

…In this regard, our attention was drawn to the decision of ; this Tribunal in case of Philips Software Centre Private Limited vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (119 TTJ 721) (2008 26 S0T226) , the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd (315 ITR 150) wherein it has allowed 20% risk adjustment considering the fact that it may not be possible to quantify risk adjustments etc . We heard the rival submissions and considered this tribunal decisions in various cases including the above cited cases . It is seen from the observations of the TPO that the TPO is not against risk adjustment but it w…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Bunge India P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4336/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Vispi PatelFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra
Section 254(1)Section 92A

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4336/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT, Circle-8(1) M/s. Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.210, 2nd Floor 601 C & 601 D, 6th Floor, The Capital, C- Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Vs. 70,G-Block, Bandra…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Accountant Member A.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs ACIT 12th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra Kumar…

CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division (315 ITR 150) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax