Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reinz Talbras Pvt. Lid

252 ITR 637High Court2001#9817 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 192 Section 234B Section 234C Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

fair market value revenue expenditure capital expenditure dispute resolution panel section 37(1)section 37 salary previous year prescribed section 143 person company

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reinz Talbras Pvt. Lid

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 37(1)

…f capital expenditure, being intrinsically linked to share capital. 10. In support of his findings, the ld. AO placed reliance on decisions such as ACIT v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Eimco K.C.P. Ltd. v. CIT (159 CTR 137, SC), CIT v. Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. (252 ITR 637, Delhi HC), and Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66, SC), to emphasize that deductible 4 Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited expenditure must be real, ascertained, and irrevocably incurred. 11. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance made by the AO in toto, observing that the AO had passed a well-reasoned and detailed…

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

…the following court rulings which have held that shares issued against assets/Technical know-how contributed by shareholders cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure: (a) Eimco K.C.P Ltd. Vs. CIT 159 CTR 137 (Supreme Court) (b) CIT Vs. Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. 252 ITR 637 (Delhi HC) The above views of Delhi ITAT in the case of Ranbaxy (supra) were also upheld subsequently by the following judicial courts: - Hyderabad ITAT in the case of Medha Servo Drivers Limited, ITA No. 1114/Hyd/2008. - Mumbai Tribunal in the cases of : (a) DCIT Vs. Blow Plast Limited, ITA No. 512/Mum/2009 (b) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. DCIT M/s…

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…cal know-how contributed by shareholders cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure:  Eimco K.C.P Ltd Vs CIT 159 CTR 137 (Supreme Court) Page No. 54 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited  CIT Vs ReinzTalbros Pvt Ltd 252 ITR 637 (Delhi) COME TAX DEPARTENT 9.14 Further, there are rulings as to what constitutes an expenditure In the case of Indian Mollasses Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 37 ITR 66, CIT VS Nainital Bank Ltd 62 ITR 38, it is held that what denotes expenditure in the normal course as spending paying out or away of money Accordingly ESOP cannot be held as expenditure of me…

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 191/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92C

…tax, and in same breath, it observed that any short collection of securities premium should also be considered as a capital outlay and not allowable as expenditure relying on Eimco K.C.P Ltd Vs CIT 159 CTR 137 (Supreme Court) and CIT Vs. Reinz Talbros Pvt Ltd 252 ITR 637 (Delhi HC). The above views of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Ranbaxy (supra) were also followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Hyderabad ITAT in the case of Medha Servo Drivers Limited ITA No 1114n-1yd/2008, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the cases of DCIT Vs Blow Plast Limited ITA IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2022 Page 29 of 30 No 512/Mum/2009; Mahind…

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

Section 35A

…set agreed that share capital would be contributed in kind as a part of subscription capital. d. Reliance is also placed on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Reinz Talbras Pvt. Lid. (2001) 252 ITR 637 (Del) (refer page 968 to 970 of the Paper book). While interpreting the ratio of EIMCO decision, the Hon'ble High Court held that the amount attributable to technical know-how which is discharged by way of issue of shares by a new company was not revenue expenditure, but it is to be treated as capital expenditure. Thus, the Delhi HC has not treat…

M/S MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in the terms indicated

ITA 414/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Unit 401-404, 4Th Floor, Circle-6(1), Copia Corporate Suites, New Delhi. Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcm8454G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th October, 2010 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Nos.1,2,3 & 16 Being General In Nature Are Dismissed. 3. Grounds Of Appeal No.4,5,6 & 12 Which Relate To Disallowance Of Technical Fee

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…certain rights to use technology by the assessee for the manufacture of Tyres was expenditure which was clearly in the nature of capital expenditure and relied upon the judgements cited as KCP Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 659 (S.C.) and CITS Vs Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. 252 ITR 637 (Del.). 7 12. Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the order passed by A.O., observed in para 5.2 of the impugned order to the effect that “the appellant itself has submitted that these expenses were incurred with a view to establish a manufacturing facility as a part of its on- going business strategy and achieve backward integration. However, the plan…

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…set agreed that share capital would be contributed in kind as a part of subscription capital. d. Reliance is also placed on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Reinz Talbras Pvt. Lid. (2001) 252 ITR 637 (Del) (refer page 968 to 970 of the Paper book). While interpreting the ratio of EIMCO decision, the Hon'ble High Court held that the amount attributable to technical know- how which is discharged by way of issue of shares by a new company was not revenue expenditure, but it is to be treated as capital expenditure. Thus, the Delhi HC has not trea…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…set agreed that share capital would be contributed in kind as a part of subscription capital. d. Reliance is also placed on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Reinz Talbras Pvt. Lid. (2001) 252 ITR 637 (Del) (refer page 968 to 970 of the Paper book). While interpreting the ratio of EIMCO decision, the Hon'ble High Court held that the amount attributable to technical know- how which is discharged by way of issue of shares by a new company was not revenue expenditure, but it is to be treated as capital expenditure. Thus, the Delhi HC has not trea…

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7367/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…se the right of buying the employees stock option. Therefore, such contingent expenditure is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act in the light of the following decision: (i) Eimco KCP Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 242 ITR 659 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs Reinz Taibros (P) Ltd. (2001) 252 ITR 637 (DEL) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT 124 TTJ (Del) (iii) 13 Korn Ferry 771. 6.6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the disallowance of Rs.52,08,592/- made by the L40 is confirmed. Ground ofAppealNo.3 is not allowed." 5.4.2 The Ld. AR has made a categorical statement th…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7139/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

M/S MICHELIN INDIA TYRES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3355/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 37(1)

…certain rights to use technology by the assessee for the manufacture of Tyres was expenditure which was clearly in the nature of capital expenditure and relied upon the judgements cited as KCP Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 659 (S.C.) and CITS Vs Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. 252 ITR 637 (Del.). 12. Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the order passed by A.O., observed in para 5.2 of the impugned order to the effect that “the appellant itself has submitted that these expenses were incurred with a view to establish a manufacturing facility as a part of its on- going business strategy and achieve backward integration. However, the plan for…