Yum Restaurants (India) P. Ltd. v. ITO

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

…sions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to the AE by aforesaid expenditure, it could not be held that…

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

…sions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to the AE by aforesaid expenditure, it could not be held that…

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

…n of law. Thus, not entertained.” 17.1 Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra); Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra); Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra); and Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. 16 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to the AE by aforesaid expe…

ARAMEX INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 9(1)(2),

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aramex India Pvt. Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Income 821, Solitaire Corporate Vs. Tax -9(1)(2), Room No. 260A, 2Nd Park Andheir Ghatkopar Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chakala Andheeri (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aacca6756A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Hiten Chande, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Anand Mohan, Cit-Dr & C.A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/11/2019

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aramex India Pvt. Ltd, Deputy Commissioner of Income 821, Solitaire Corporate Vs. Tax -9(1)(2), Room No. 260A, 2nd Park Andheir Ghatkopar RD Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chakala Andheeri (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400093. PAN No. AACCA6756A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Hiten Chande, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR & C.A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16/08/2019 Date of pronouncement : 08/11/2019…

COLAGATE-PALMOLIVE (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhcolgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Additional Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre, Income Tax-10(3) Main Street, Vs. Hiranandani, Gardens, Pawai, Mumbai-400076 Pan: Aaacc4309B Appellant Respondent

…ions, few of which are as follows:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT 2015 64 Taxmnn.com 150 (ii) CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to the AE by aforesaid expenditure, it could not be held tha…

BANCTEC TPS INDIA P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT CIR 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Banctec Tps India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-15, T-341, Tower 3, 4Th Floor Room No.574, 5Th Floor, International Infotech Park Aayakar Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station M.K.Road, Complex, Vashi Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aaact8971E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM M/s. BancTec TPS India Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax-15, T-341, Tower 3, 4th Floor Room No.574, 5th Floor, International Infotech Park Aayakar Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station M.K.Road, Complex, Vashi Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 PAN/GIR No. AAACT8971E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Madhur Agarwal & Ms. Urvi Mehta Revenue by Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing 20/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 04/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M…

ASST CIT 10(3) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to the AE by aforesaid expenditure, it could not be held that…

ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALM OLIVE (I) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 381 ITR 154 (iii) Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT 381 ITR 237 CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 (iv) Yum Restaurants (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 380 ITR 637 In the above-mentioned decisions, it has categorically been held that in the absence of agreement between the assessee and its AE obliging the assessee to incur AMP expenditure on behalf of its AE, no international transaction can be presumed. Even if some indirect benefit has accrued to the AE by aforesaid expenditure, it could not be held that…

WADHWA & ASSOCIATES REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Wadhwa & Associates Asst. Commissioner Of Income Realtors Private Limited Tax 9(3) 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Mumbai. Plot C-59, G Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aaacw5273G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate & Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Patankar Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R

…March 2009 and 31st March 2010 and directly as on 31st March 2012. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to set off the loss under consideration in the assessment year 2012-13. 22. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Yum India reported in [2016] 380 ITR 637 (Delhi) is distinguishable on facts. The assessee in that case did not lead any evidence to show that Yum USA is the beneficial owner of shares held by Yum Asia in Yum India which was subsequently transferred to Yum Singapore. Yum USA is not a shareholder on any of the 2 days as mandated by section 79 of the Act. In the instant case, the case of…