Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CIT-LTU

150 ITD 377Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#13455 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CIT-LTU

Procter & Gamble Health Ltd. (Formerly Known As Merck Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT -7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1637/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

…l turnover and not in excess of similar expenditure incurred in previous and subsequent assessment years. Thus, she submitted, there is no justifiable reason to disallow even 20% of the expenditure. She further submitted, in case of Johnsons & Johnsons (2014) 150 ITD 377 (Mum) while considering identical nature of dispute, the Tribunal has restricted the disallowance to 2% of the claim of the assessee. Thus, she submitted, in worst case, the disallowance should not exceed 2% of the cost incurred by the assessee towards free samples. 7. The learned departmental representative strongly relied upon the observations…

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey()

…She submitted, though, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2013-14, learned DRP has restricted the disallowance to 20% of the amount claimed, however, in case of another assessee, viz. Johnson & Johnson Ltd Vs. CIT (2014) 150 ITD 377 (Mum), the Tribunal has restricted the disallowance to 2% of the amount claimed. Thus, she submitted, the disallowance may be restricted to 2%. 11. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). I.T.A. No.2916/Mum/2015 5 12. We have considered rival submissions a…

Samsonite South Asia P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6850/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 68(2)Section 92BSection 92DSection 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM I.T.A. No.6850/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Samsonite South Asia P. Ltd. ACIT, Cir 11(1)(2) 402, Akruti Star MIDC, R. No.1, Through Ask Centre on Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACS 8598 L (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivram Respondent by : Shri Jayant Kumar Date of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order by…

Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2245/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR
Section 80

…ved is a case of purchase of trade mark and therefore the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in linking it with Advertising, Promotion and Marketing (AMP) expenses. He relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs CIT-LTU 150 ITD 377 (Mumbai I.T.A. No. 1894, 1898, 2244, 2245/D/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 Trib.) for the proposition that where the assessee had purchased trade mark, the TPO could not make adjustment to assessee’s ALP taking a view that payment for purchase of trade mark was unnecessary as products sold by the assessee had already acquired a reputat…

Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR
Section 80

…ved is a case of purchase of trade mark and therefore the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in linking it with Advertising, Promotion and Marketing (AMP) expenses. He relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs CIT-LTU 150 ITD 377 (Mumbai I.T.A. No. 1894, 1898, 2244, 2245/D/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 Trib.) for the proposition that where the assessee had purchased trade mark, the TPO could not make adjustment to assessee’s ALP taking a view that payment for purchase of trade mark was unnecessary as products sold by the assessee had already acquired a reputat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fabindia Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1898/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR
Section 80

…ved is a case of purchase of trade mark and therefore the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in linking it with Advertising, Promotion and Marketing (AMP) expenses. He relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs CIT-LTU 150 ITD 377 (Mumbai I.T.A. No. 1894, 1898, 2244, 2245/D/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 Trib.) for the proposition that where the assessee had purchased trade mark, the TPO could not make adjustment to assessee’s ALP taking a view that payment for purchase of trade mark was unnecessary as products sold by the assessee had already acquired a reputat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Fabindia Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1894/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR
Section 80

…ved is a case of purchase of trade mark and therefore the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in linking it with Advertising, Promotion and Marketing (AMP) expenses. He relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs CIT-LTU 150 ITD 377 (Mumbai I.T.A. No. 1894, 1898, 2244, 2245/D/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 Trib.) for the proposition that where the assessee had purchased trade mark, the TPO could not make adjustment to assessee’s ALP taking a view that payment for purchase of trade mark was unnecessary as products sold by the assessee had already acquired a reputat…