Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT (

39 ITR 594High Court1960#5796 most cited

What is Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT ( authority for?

Commission is an allowance for service or labor in discharging certain duties, while rebate is a remission or payment back, distinct from commission.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT · commission · rebate · discount · allowance for service · payment back · Bombay High Court · 39 ITR 594

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

contemporaneous datasection 40a(i)section 194a(1)section 210section 92c(2)section 194hdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 92c(3)benchmarking analysisworking capital adjustmentsection 145(2)right to receive

Judgments citing Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT (

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

…aborated as a deduction from an original price or debt, allowed for paying promptly or in cash. The distinction between the commission and discount as explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory vs CIT reported in 39 ITR 594 wherein it has been explained the expression; "commission" has no technical meaning but both in legal and commercial acceptation of the term it has definite signification and is understood as an allowance for service or labour in discharging certain duties such four instance of an agent, factor, broker or any other person who manages the affairs o…

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2835/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited of Income-tax (LTU) v. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. PAN : AAACH1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, JM…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…butors in relation to rebate / discount is on principal-to-principal basis and hence the provisions of 194H are not applicable. Further the ld. AR relied on the following case laws in this regard - - Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT (Reported in [1960] 39 ITR 594 (Bombay) - Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI (Reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 628 (Gujarat)) - CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (Reported in [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201 (SC - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT (Reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 31 (Karnataka) IT(TP)A Nos.2834/B/17 & 134/Bang/2018 Page 19 of 37 - CIT v. United Breweries Lt…

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2834/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…butors in relation to rebate / discount is on principal-to-principal basis and hence the provisions of 194H are not applicable. Further the ld. AR relied on the following case laws in this regard - - Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT (Reported in [1960] 39 ITR 594 (Bombay) - Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI (Reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 628 (Gujarat)) - CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (Reported in [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201 (SC - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT (Reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 31 (Karnataka) IT(TP)A Nos.2834/B/17 & 134/Bang/2018 Page 19 of 37 - CIT v. United Breweries Lt…

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 642/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…butors in relation to rebate / discount is on principal-to-principal basis and hence the provisions of 194H are not applicable. Further the ld. AR relied on the following case laws in this regard - - Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT (Reported in [1960] 39 ITR 594 (Bombay) - Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI (Reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 628 (Gujarat)) - CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (Reported in [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201 (SC - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT (Reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 31 (Karnataka) - CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. (Reported in [2017] 80 taxmann.com 123 (Andhra Prad…

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…butors in relation to rebate / discount is on principal-to-principal basis and hence the provisions of 194H are not applicable. Further the ld. AR relied on the following case laws in this regard - - Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT (Reported in [1960] 39 ITR 594 (Bombay) - Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI (Reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 628 (Gujarat)) - CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (Reported in [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201 (SC - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT (Reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 31 (Karnataka) - CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. (Reported in [2017] 80 taxmann.com 123 (Andhra Prad…

DELL INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…butors in relation to rebate / discount is on principal-to-principal basis and hence the provisions of 194H are not applicable. Further the ld. AR relied on the following case laws in this regard - - Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT (Reported in [1960] 39 ITR 594 (Bombay) - Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI (Reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 628 (Gujarat)) - CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (Reported in [2012] 25 taxmann.com 201 (SC - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT (Reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 31 (Karnataka) - CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. (Reported in [2017] 80 taxmann.com 123 (Andhra Prad…

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2680/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2013-14 M/s. TE Connectivity India Private Vs. The Deputy Limited, Commissioner of “TE Park”, 22B, Doddanekundi 2nd Income-tax, LTU, Phase, Circle 1, Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Whitefield Road, Bangalore – 560 048. PAN: AABCT 7374C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sumeet Khurana, CA Respondent by : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 2035/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

…d in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 201;  Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2014) 52 taxmann.com 31;  Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT reported in (1960) 39 ITR 594;  Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Intervet India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 14 ; and  Decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI reported in (2002) 124 Taxman 628  Decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court in case CIT v. United Breweries…

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

…d in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 201;  Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2014) 52 taxmann.com 31;  Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT reported in (1960) 39 ITR 594;  Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Intervet India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 14 ; and  Decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI reported in (2002) 124 Taxman 628  Decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court in case CIT v. United Breweries…

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

…d in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 201;  Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT reported in (2014) 52 taxmann.com 31;  Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT reported in (1960) 39 ITR 594;  Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Intervet India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 14 ; and  Decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. UOI reported in (2002) 124 Taxman 628  Decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court in case CIT v. United Breweries…

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…on behalf of the payer. In other words, principal-agent relationship is a sine-qua-non for invoking the provisions of section 194H of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory9 39 ITR 594 (Bom), which held that there is a distinction between commission and rebate and therefore rebate cannot be treated as commission. iv. The learned counsel for the Assessee further relied on the following judicial precedents including that of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and other Courts wherein it was held the provisions of section 194H are not…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblenokia India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit C/O. Tec, Level 18, Circle - 10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon. (Pan : Aaacn 2170 R)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…ax under Chapter-XVII-B of the Act on the underlying amount of trade offers, particularly where the Assessing Officer has not disputed the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision in case of Tupperware India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 594 (Bom.). The Ld. AR submitted that the trade scheme / offers were floated by assessee for Distributors under schemes to maximize sales in each territory and incentivize high-performing Distributors who achieve their monthly sales targets. Therefore, discount is given to the Distributors which have been referred by the Assessing Officer as a ‘benefi…

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5791/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblenokia India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit C/O. Tec, Level 18, Circle - 10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon. (Pan : Aaacn 2170 R)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…ax under Chapter-XVII-B of the Act on the underlying amount of trade offers, particularly where the Assessing Officer has not disputed the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision in case of Tupperware India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 594 (Bom.). The Ld. AR submitted that the trade scheme / offers were floated by assessee for Distributors under schemes to maximize sales in each territory and incentivize high-performing Distributors who achieve their monthly sales targets. Therefore, discount is given to the Distributors which have been referred by the Assessing Officer as a ‘benefi…

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FUTURA VALUE RETAIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 6705/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit-9(3)(2), M/S. Future Value 418, 4Th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, V. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaecp3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 6705/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Ita No. Cit(A)/ I.T.305/Dcit-9(3)(2)/2015-16, For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6705/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ ACIT-9(3)(2), M/s. Future Value 418, 4th Floor, Retail Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Knowledge House, v. Mumbai-400020 Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAECP3041P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. Sushil Kumar Poddar (DR) Assessee by: Ms. Dinkle Hariya सुनवाई…

ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tity is in the nature of cash discount. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also considered the distinction between the commission and discount as explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory vs. CIT reported in 39 ITR 594 wherein it has been explained the expression; "Commission" has no technical meaning but both in legal and commercial acceptation of the term it has definite signification and is understood as an allowance for service or labour in discharging certain duties such for instance of an agent, factor, broker or any other person who manages the affairs or…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tity is in the nature of cash discount. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also considered the distinction between the commission and discount as explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory vs. CIT reported in 39 ITR 594 wherein it has been explained the expression; "Commission" has no technical meaning but both in legal and commercial acceptation of the term it has definite signification and is understood as an allowance for service or labour in discharging certain duties such for instance of an agent, factor, broker or any other person who manages the affairs or…

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (I) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito (Tds)(Osd) Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. 1(2) Trade Garden, Gr. Floor, Kamala बनाम/ R.No.811 K.G. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Vs. Mittal Hospital Marg, Lower Parel,(W) Bldg. Charni Rd Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaace7796G Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Respondent By Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 11/01/2017

Section 192Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…ed for paying promptly or in cash. 5.4.6 The Honble Gujarat High Court has also considered the distinction between, the commission and discount as explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory vs CIT reported in 39 ITR 594 wherein it has been explained the expression; "Commission" has no technical meaning but 13 Entertainment Network both in legal and commercial acceptation of the term it has definite signification and is understood as an allowance for service or labour in discharging certain duties such for instance of an agent, factor, broker or any other person w…

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1352/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito (Tds)(Osd) Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. 1(2) Trade Garden, Gr. Floor, Kamala बनाम/ R.No.811 K.G. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Vs. Mittal Hospital Marg, Lower Parel,(W) Bldg. Charni Rd Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaace7796G Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Respondent By Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 11/01/2017

Section 192Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…ed for paying promptly or in cash. 5.4.6 The Honble Gujarat High Court has also considered the distinction between, the commission and discount as explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory vs CIT reported in 39 ITR 594 wherein it has been explained the expression; "Commission" has no technical meaning but 13 Entertainment Network both in legal and commercial acceptation of the term it has definite signification and is understood as an allowance for service or labour in discharging certain duties such for instance of an agent, factor, broker or any other person w…

M/S DELHI MILK SCHEME vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1466/2006HC Delhi04 Mar 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 133ASection 194Section 260

…relating to any asset, valuable article or thing, not being securities; (ii) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx” 9. On the other hand, the word „discount‟ had come up for consideration in Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1960] 39 ITR 594. In that decision, it was held that a discount or a drawback is another word for a rebate which is a remission or a payment back and of the nature of a deduction from the gross amount. In other words, it includes a refund to the purchaser of a thing or commodity of a portion of the price paid by him. 10. In a slightly different but never…

Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. CIT ( (39 ITR 594) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax