Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

165 ITR 416High Court1987#6878 most cited

What is Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. authority for?

Payments made as reimbursement for expenses incurred on behalf of the payer are not considered income chargeable to tax in the hands of the payee.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Engineering Products (P) Ltd. · CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. · reimbursement of expenses · not taxable income · income chargeable to tax · payee income · Bombay High Court · Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

Judgments citing Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1453/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1452/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1451/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

ITO Ward - 61(1), New Delhi vs. Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1450/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1237/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1236/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

Ashish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1235/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1234/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

Anish Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue are dismissed on this score

ITA 1233/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Anish Kumar Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ear: 2003-04, 2009-TIOL-730-ITAT-MUM (Annexure) That relying on the judgments of CIT Vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) and CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 416 (Cal) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom) (Annexure), held, " payment by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of payer is not income chargeable to tax in the hands of payee." That, the action of Ld. A.O. by disallowing the expenses which was reimbursed by the RIL…

Chander Mohan Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

…i. ABB Ltd.: 322 ITR 564 iii. ITO v. CGI Information Systems in ITA No. 1376/Bang iv. ACIT vs. Modicon Network: 14 SOT 204 v. CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 vi. CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: 220 CTR 425 vii. C.I.T. vs. Stewards and Llyods, 165 ITR 416 (Cal) viii. CIT vs. Sundwiger Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) ix. Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) x. Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) xi. Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82 ITD 106 (Mum) xii. Hyder Consulting Ltd. v. CIT: 236 ITR 640 (AAR) xiii. DECTA v. CIT: 237 ITR 190 (AAR) xiv. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.…

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250

…997) 228 ITR 253] Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited vs. CIT [(1997) 228 ITR 253] and the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Stewarts & CIT vs. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. [(1987) 165 ITR 416] Lloyds of India Ltd. [(1987) 165 ITR 416]. 12 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited 21. The receipt of the grant was duly disclosed in the notes to computation of receipt of the grant was duly disclosed in the notes to computation of receipt of the grant was duly disc…

Kimberly Clark Lever P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…was pleased to hold that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organisation would not be income which would be assessable to tax. A similar view was taken in CIT v. Stewards and Lloyds of India Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 416. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts.” 18. To the same effect decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts in the following cases :- (i) DIT(IT) vs. Abbey Business Services India (P.) Ltd., 122 taxman 174 (Karnataka High Court); (ii) CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft, 310 ITR 320; (iii) DIT(I…

M/S. Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Ltd.: [2014] 361 ITR 192 (Gujarat) • CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bombay) • CIT v. Microsoft Corporation Of India (P) Limited: 220 CTR 425 (Del) • CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del) • C.I.T. vs. Stewards and Llyods, 165 ITR 416 (Cal) • CIT vs. Sundwiger Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) • Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) • Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) • Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82 ITD 106 (Mum) • Hyder Consulting Ltd. v. CIT: 236 ITR 640 (AAR) • DECTA v. CIT: 237 ITR 190 (AAR) • Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd: 309 ITR 356 (…

M/S. Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 6640/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ito (Tds), Ltd., Building No.8A, 4Th Vs Ward – 3(2) Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf New Delhi Phase-Ii, Gurgaon -122002 Pan Aaacs4781P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201

…was pleased to hold that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organisation would not be income which would be assessable to tax. A similar view was taken in CIT v. stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. 119871 165 ITR 416 (Cal)." 7. Consequently, in view of the judgment in Siemens, the first and second issue would not raise any substantial question of law since they are covered against the Revenue. 11. While delivering the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has also considered the decision by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Industrial…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sicom Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM M/s. SICOM Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/s. SICOM Ltd., Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora with Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue by Shri B. Pruseth Date of Hearing 20/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cross appeals filed by t…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM M/s. SICOM Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/s. SICOM Ltd., Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora with Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue by Shri B. Pruseth Date of Hearing 20/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cross appeals filed by t…

Engineering Products (P) Ltd. 202 ITR 1014 (Delhi), CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (165 ITR 416) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax