What is Nestle India Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) is not considered an integral part of a computer system for the purpose of claiming higher depreciation; it is generally eligible for the standard depreciation rate applicable to plant and machinery.

How many judgments cite Nestle India Ltd. v. DCIT?

62 judgments on BharatTax cite Nestle India Ltd. v. DCIT (111 TTJ 498), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Nestle India Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 14A, Section 151.

Nestle India Ltd. v. DCIT (111 TTJ 498)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3125/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ed into as a part of the Assessee legitimate commercial undertaking in order to facilitate the carrying on of its business and it is immaterial that the third party also benefits thereby…..; 33. Further, the Delhi Tribunal of ITAT in Nestle India Ltd. vs DCIT 111 TTJ 498 (Del. Trib.) had held as under:- “22……………….. The expenditure incurred by the Assessee company on advertisement/sales promotion of ITA No. 3167/Del/2017, 3125/Del/2017 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. some Nestle Products in India may give rise to certain benefit to Nestle SA, but this cannot be a ground to disallow the claim of the Assessee, once…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6128/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ed into as a part of the Assessee legitimate commercial undertaking in order to facilitate the carrying on of its business and it is immaterial that the third party also benefits thereby…..; 33. Further, the Delhi Tribunal of ITAT in Nestle India Ltd. vs DCIT 111 TTJ 498 (Del. Trib.) had held as under:- “22……………….. The expenditure incurred by the Assessee company on advertisement/sales promotion of ITA No. 3167/Del/2017, 3125/Del/2017 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. some Nestle Products in India may give rise to certain benefit to Nestle SA, but this cannot be a ground to disallow the claim of the Assessee, once…

Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5774/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ed into as a part of the Assessee legitimate commercial undertaking in order to facilitate the carrying on of its business and it is immaterial that the third party also benefits thereby…..; 33. Further, the Delhi Tribunal of ITAT in Nestle India Ltd. vs DCIT 111 TTJ 498 (Del. Trib.) had held as under:- “22……………….. The expenditure incurred by the Assessee company on advertisement/sales promotion of ITA No. 3167/Del/2017, 3125/Del/2017 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. some Nestle Products in India may give rise to certain benefit to Nestle SA, but this cannot be a ground to disallow the claim of the Assessee, once…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue is

ITA 2946/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “आई-2”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी "शांत मह"ष", लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, V.P & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AADCM8454G. vs The JCIT (OSD), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2946/Del/2014 "नधा…

M/S. Michelin India Tyres Private Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue is

ITA 2415/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “आई-2”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी "शांत मह"ष", लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, V.P & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AADCM8454G. vs The JCIT (OSD), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2946/Del/2014 "नधा…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3766/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt NainaSoin Kapil, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh SatyenSethi, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(3)

…by the assessee treating it as the computer periphery or at 15% as restricted by the learned assessing officer by treating it as falling within Plant and Machinery block. 24. Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision in the case of Nestlé India Limited vs. DCIT 111 TTJ 498 (Del) wherein the Tribunal held that the depreciation on UPS is not to be allowed at 60%. However subsequently there are many decisions on this aspect and more particularly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd (2013) 358 ITR 47 held that UPS forms part of the computer periphery and depreciation at a 60% is all…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3765/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt NainaSoin Kapil, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh SatyenSethi, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(3)

…by the assessee treating it as the computer periphery or at 15% as restricted by the learned assessing officer by treating it as falling within Plant and Machinery block. 24. Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision in the case of Nestlé India Limited vs. DCIT 111 TTJ 498 (Del) wherein the Tribunal held that the depreciation on UPS is not to be allowed at 60%. However subsequently there are many decisions on this aspect and more particularly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd (2013) 358 ITR 47 held that UPS forms part of the computer periphery and depreciation at a 60% is all…

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)

…al course of business activities either the parent company or some other party is benefitted, the same cannot be a ground to disallow a part of the expenditure on ad hoc basis. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nestle India Ltd. vs. DCIT 111 TTJ 498 has held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee company on advertisement/sales promotion of some Nestle products in India may give rise to certain benefit to Nestle SA, but it cannot be a ground to disallow the claim of the assessee once it is established that the expenditure in question has been incurred by the assessee for the purpose…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2494/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35

…the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it was held that UPS is not an integral part of computer and allowed depreciation as a part of general plant and machinery. Accordingly, the excess ITA Nos.2493 & 2494/2016. :- 18 -: depreciation claimed by the assessee is disallowed and added to the total income. 11.1 During the appeal hearing the Ld.AR of the assessee argued that e…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2493/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT

Section 35

…the UPS is neither a part of the computer nor a energy saving device but it is only as an uninterrupted power supply equipment for all the electrical appliances. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Nestle India Limited Vs. DCIT [111 TTJ 498], wherein it was held that UPS is not an integral part of computer and allowed depreciation as a part of general plant and machinery. Accordingly, the excess ITA Nos.2493 & 2494/2016. :- 18 -: depreciation claimed by the assessee is disallowed and added to the total income. 11.1 During the appeal hearing the Ld.AR of the assessee argued that e…

Cinetech Entertainment India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4971/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4971/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Cinetech Entertainment India Pvt. Ito, Ward-16(1)(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. बनाम/ 27, Filmlab, Wall Bhatt Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecc 3526 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

…or projecting a beam of light or projecting images or motion pictures already produced and input. Therefore, such digital projector is a machine and for theatre it is a part and parcel of the plant and machine. 3.4. In the case of Nestle India Ltd. v/s. DCIT 111 TTJ 498 (ITAT Delhi) it has been held that UPS is not an integral part of computer, hence not entitled for higher rate of depreciation. Similarly, though ATM is run on the basis of computer devise, is not entitled for higher depreciation applicable to the computer. This propositions is there in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. V/s ACIT 2011 TIOL - 101 (ITAT Mu…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ively for the purpose of Indian taxpayer’s business and any benefit derived thereof to the foreign AE owning the brand is merely incidental. Here, reliance is placed on the order dated 30 April 2007 of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Nestle India Ltd [111 TTJ 498 A.Y 1999-00]. In the said case, Nestle (India) Ltd (Nestle India) had entered into an agreement with Nestle Switzerland Co. which were owners of Nestle Trademark, Nestle India Ltd had right to use the said “Trademark” in its operations and incurred Advertisement / Marketing expense of Rs.104.86 crores in India to promote sale of its products in I…

M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ively for the purpose of Indian taxpayer’s business and any benefit derived thereof to the foreign AE owning the brand is merely incidental. Here, reliance is placed on the order dated 30 April 2007 of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Nestle India Ltd [111 TTJ 498 A.Y 1999-00]. In the said case, Nestle (India) Ltd (Nestle India) had entered into an agreement with Nestle Switzerland Co. which were owners of Nestle Trademark, Nestle India Ltd had right to use the said “Trademark” in its operations and incurred Advertisement / Marketing expense of Rs.104.86 crores in India to promote sale of its products in I…