(para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi

156 TTJ 139Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#7687 most cited

What is (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi authority for?

Payments for sponsorship rights, such as title sponsorship or being an "Official Partner" of an event, are not considered royalty income for the use of trademarks or brand names under Section 9(1)(vi). Consequently, withholding tax obligations under Section 195 may not apply to such payments.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hero MotoCorp Ltd · 156 TTJ 139 · sponsorship payment · royalty income · section 9(1)(vi) · trademark · brand name · official partner · ICC · taxability · withholding tax · section 195

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 10(14)(i)Section 10(5)Section 131Section 144CSection 192Section 194C

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentsection 4(1)section 61section 90(1)section 39tax residency certificatesection 5(2)commercial rightsroyalty incomeassistant directorsection 9(1)(vi)beneficial owner

Judgments citing (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…hich were utilized as samples for the purpose of generating sales. 8.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that the facts of the decision of the Honourable Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd (156 TTJ 139) are squarely applicable in the Appellant's case. 9. Provision for warranty — Outside Contract Services 9.1 The CIT(A), having accepted Appellant's claim of deduction in respect of provision for warranty - outside contract services, has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to disallow expenses having invoice dates earlier to April 1, 200…

Hewlett Pakcard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

…hich were utilized as samples for the purpose of generating sales. 8.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that the facts of the decision of the Honourable Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd (156 TTJ 139) are squarely applicable in the Appellant's case. 9. Provision for warranty — Outside Contract Services 9.1 The CIT(A), having accepted Appellant's claim of deduction in respect of provision for warranty - outside contract services, has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to disallow expenses having invoice dates earlier to April 1, 200…

ACIT, Jhandewalan vs. M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 5141/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…by an employee(s). "Though the decision is in relation with exemption under section 10(5) of the act, however the ratio of same in somewhat limited perspective cannot be overlooked in present case. ……………………………. 8.9 In the case of Hero MotoCorp Ltd. vs. ACIT [156 TTJ 139 {Delhi - Trib.}], the Tribunal held that reasonable per diem allowances paid to employees without the production of vouchers could not be disallowed when such allowances were part of a consistent company policy. The decision directly applies to the present case, where the appellant's policy and implementation have been consistent and reasonable.…

Mankind Pharma Limited (As Successor of Magnet Labs Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) Delhi, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…by an employee(s). "Though the decision is in relation with exemption under section 10(5) of the act, however the ratio of same in somewhat limited perspective cannot be overlooked in present case. ……………………………. 8.9 In the case of Hero MotoCorp Ltd. vs. ACIT [156 TTJ 139 {Delhi - Trib.}], the Tribunal held that reasonable per diem allowances paid to employees without the production of vouchers could not be disallowed when such allowances were part of a consistent company policy. The decision directly applies to the present case, where the appellant's policy and implementation have been consistent and reasonable.…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR
Section 145(1)Section 40

…or the purpose of generating sales. 6.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the facts of the decision of the Honourable Delhi Income tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") in the case of Page 5 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 Hero Motocorp Ltd (156 TTJ 139) are squarely applicable in the Appellants case. 7 Grounds pertaining to disallowance of expenses debited as cost of goods sold 7.1 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the addition made by the AO in respect of certain amounts debited under the head cost of goods sold for want of addition evidence and details of Tax Deduction at…

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 579/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR
Section 145(1)Section 40

…or the purpose of generating sales. 6.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the facts of the decision of the Honourable Delhi Income tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") in the case of Page 5 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 Hero Motocorp Ltd (156 TTJ 139) are squarely applicable in the Appellants case. 7 Grounds pertaining to disallowance of expenses debited as cost of goods sold 7.1 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the addition made by the AO in respect of certain amounts debited under the head cost of goods sold for want of addition evidence and details of Tax Deduction at…

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…R 349) wherein it was held that payments made for obtaining title sponsorship rights of a sporting event were not payments for acquisition of copyright and, therefore, were not royalty. (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd vs. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi (156 TTJ 139) wherein it was held that the amount in question could not be royalty for the use of any trademark, brand name. (para 53.38). (c) Reebok India Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi [2017] 79 taxmann.com 271 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it was held that the „rights fee‟ paid to IDI to be the „Official Partner of ICC‟ cann…

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…R 349) wherein it was held that payments made for obtaining title sponsorship rights of a sporting event were not payments for acquisition of copyright and, therefore, were not royalty. (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd vs. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi (156 TTJ 139) wherein it was held that the amount in question could not be royalty for the use of any trademark, brand name. (para 53.38). (c) Reebok India Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi [2017] 79 taxmann.com 271 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it was held that the „rights fee‟ paid to IDI to be the „Official Partner of ICC‟ cann…

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…R 349) wherein it was held that payments made for obtaining title sponsorship rights of a sporting event were not payments for acquisition of copyright and, therefore, were not royalty. (para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd vs. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi (156 TTJ 139) wherein it was held that the amount in question could not be royalty for the use of any trademark, brand name. (para 53.38). (c) Reebok India Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi [2017] 79 taxmann.com 271 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it was held that the „rights fee‟ paid to IDI to be the „Official Partner of ICC‟ cann…

At & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7115/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…rmal provisions:- i) DCIT vs. Chandabhoy Jassobhoy in ITA No.20/Mum/2010 (Mumbai Tribunal) ii) DCIT vs. M/s S.K. Tekriwal, ITA No.1135/Kol/2010 (Kolkata Tribunal) iii) Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT,,175 TTJ 450 iv) Hero MotoCorp. Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT, 156 TTJ 139 (Del-Trib) v) UE Trade Corpn (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 54 SOT 596 vi) ACIT vs. Pankaj Bhargava. 48. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 49. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decisions…

M/S at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5535/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…rmal provisions:- i) DCIT vs. Chandabhoy Jassobhoy in ITA No.20/Mum/2010 (Mumbai Tribunal) ii) DCIT vs. M/s S.K. Tekriwal, ITA No.1135/Kol/2010 (Kolkata Tribunal) iii) Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT,,175 TTJ 450 iv) Hero MotoCorp. Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT, 156 TTJ 139 (Del-Trib) v) UE Trade Corpn (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 54 SOT 596 vi) ACIT vs. Pankaj Bhargava. 48. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 49. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decisions…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI "ी बी आर भा"करन, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 8534/Mum/2011 (Assessment year: 2007-08) ITA No. : 649/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2008-09) "संगएनता इं"डया "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Vs Addl. CIT- 1(3), Mumbai Syngenta India Ltd., S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm Baner Road, Pune -411 045 "थयी लेखा सं. PAN: AAECS 9424 P अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant by : "ी मुकेश भूटानी Shri Mukesh Bhutani "ी "वशाल…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 8534/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI "ी बी आर भा"करन, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 8534/Mum/2011 (Assessment year: 2007-08) ITA No. : 649/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2008-09) "संगएनता इं"डया "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Vs Addl. CIT- 1(3), Mumbai Syngenta India Ltd., S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm Baner Road, Pune -411 045 "थयी लेखा सं. PAN: AAECS 9424 P अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant by : "ी मुकेश भूटानी Shri Mukesh Bhutani "ी "वशाल…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…CIT: 86 ITR 11 (SC ) - CIT vs. United Hotels Ltd.: 177 Taxman 417 (Delhi) - CIT vs S. Krishna Rao : 76 ITR 664 (AP) - CIT v. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd: 316 ITR 426 (Raj. HC) - ACIT vs. Doon Valley Motors: 10 SOT 525 (Del Tr.) - Hero Motor Corp Ltd. vs. ACIT: 156 TTJ 139 (Del. Tri.) 36.20 Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AR further submitted, that even if it is assumed without admitting that the energy meters were purchased by the assessee at higher prices, even then the said issue would only remain academic, since ultimately tax has been paid by REL on the consideration received on sale of the energy…

(para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi (156 TTJ 139) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax