Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 49(3), New Delhi

12 SOT 221Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#11040 most cited
9

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 113Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194HSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 194dtds on commissionsection 44aesection 133a(2a)section 40a(ia)short deduction of taxsection 194hsection 44aasection 194jpermanent account numbersection 9(1)(vii)section 194c

Judgments citing Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 49(3), New Delhi

MURARILAL MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 636/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

…ional or technical services and subjected to tax deduction at source under section 194J, since the nature of the service were in pari materia with the nature of services as contemplated in section 194C- Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ITO (2007) 12 SOT 221 (Delhi- Trib.) I.T.A. No.: 636/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Murarilal Murarka. The claim of the assessee that there was an agreement with the agent that only commission at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per bill will be paid and all other expenses will be reimbursement. Any such agreement cannot prevail over the existing provisions of the law. The as…

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6425/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

…o tax deduction at source under section 194C of the Act." Further we would also like to draw your goodself attention to the decision of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer, Ward 49(3), New Delhi (2007) 12 SOT 221 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has categorically held that payments made to agent for services relating to Storage, Dispatch, transportation, loading and unloading of goods is liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C." Though the AO considered the reply/submission of the Assessee, however, found the same not acceptable, on the fo…

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6422/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

…o tax deduction at source under section 1940 of the Act." Further we would also like to draw your goodself attention to the decision of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer, Ward 49(3), New Delhi (2007) 12 SOT 221 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has categorically held that payments made to agent for services relating to Storage, Dispatch, transportation, loading and unloading of goods is liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C." 6. Though the AO considered the reply/submission of the Assessee, however, found the same not acceptable, on the…

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OSD TDS CIRLCE 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6419/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

…o tax deduction at source under section 1940 of the Act." Further we would also like to draw your goodself attention to the decision of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer, Ward 49(3), New Delhi (2007) 12 SOT 221 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has categorically held that payments made to agent for services relating to Storage, Dispatch, transportation, loading and unloading of goods is liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194C. 6. Though the AO considered the reply/submission of the Assessee, however, found the same not acceptable, on the…

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…at the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not warranted when the tax deduction at sources was incorrectly me under a different section which resulted in the shortfall. · Hon’ble ITAT Delhi ‘E’ Bench in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. vs. ITO 12 SOT 221 (Delhi) · Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jivanlal Lalloobhai& Co. 206 ITR 548 (Bom) · Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai “B” Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 129 ITD 109 (Mumbai) · Hon’ble ITAT Mumabi in the case of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai) 9. Respectfully following the above judgemen…

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 360/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…at the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not warranted when the tax deduction at sources was incorrectly me under a different section which resulted in the shortfall. · Hon’ble ITAT Delhi ‘E’ Bench in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. vs. ITO 12 SOT 221 (Delhi) · Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jivanlal Lalloobhai& Co. 206 ITR 548 (Bom) · Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai “B” Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 129 ITD 109 (Mumbai) · Hon’ble ITAT Mumabi in the case of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai) 9. Respectfully following the above judgemen…

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 315/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…at the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not warranted when the tax deduction at sources was incorrectly me under a different section which resulted in the shortfall. · Hon’ble ITAT Delhi ‘E’ Bench in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. vs. ITO 12 SOT 221 (Delhi) · Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jivanlal Lalloobhai& Co. 206 ITR 548 (Bom) · Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai “B” Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd. 129 ITD 109 (Mumbai) · Hon’ble ITAT Mumabi in the case of DCIT vs. Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy 49 SOT 448 (Mumbai) 9. Respectfully following the above judgemen…

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 565/CHNY/2015[2014-15 (upto Sep 2014)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.564 & 565/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-2015 Vodafone Cellular Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.1045-1046, Income Tax, Avinashi Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore 641 018 Coimbatore [Pan Aaacb 8614L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT, IRS
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

…ssee relied on the following judgments. (1) Associated Cement Company Ltd. vs . CIT 201 ITR 435 (SC) (2) ITO vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, 64 SOT 138, Mumbai. (3) Khaitan & Co vs. CIT, 12 SOT 120, Delhi. (4) Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Ltd. vs. ITO, 12 SOT 221, Delhi. (5) ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd, 135 TTJ 589, Mumbai. (6) East India Hotels Ltd. And Authorised Representative. V. CBDT and Anr.320 ITR 526 (Bom) (7) Skycell Communications Ltd and Another vs. DICT, 251 ITR 53 and also Circular No.715, dated 08.08.1995 issued by CBDT. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representati…

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 564/CHNY/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.564 & 565/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-2015 Vodafone Cellular Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.1045-1046, Income Tax, Avinashi Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore 641 018 Coimbatore [Pan Aaacb 8614L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT, IRS
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

…ssee relied on the following judgments. (1) Associated Cement Company Ltd. vs . CIT 201 ITR 435 (SC) (2) ITO vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, 64 SOT 138, Mumbai. (3) Khaitan & Co vs. CIT, 12 SOT 120, Delhi. (4) Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Ltd. vs. ITO, 12 SOT 221, Delhi. (5) ACIT vs. Merchant Shipping Services (P) Ltd, 135 TTJ 589, Mumbai. (6) East India Hotels Ltd. And Authorised Representative. V. CBDT and Anr.320 ITR 526 (Bom) (7) Skycell Communications Ltd and Another vs. DICT, 251 ITR 53 and also Circular No.715, dated 08.08.1995 issued by CBDT. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representati…

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 49(3), New Delhi (12 SOT 221) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax