Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (2.61 seconds)
Documents citing Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nestle India Ltd. on 10 January, 2005

Catholic Relief Services, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 September, 2014

8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records and precedents relied upon. In view of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we find considerable force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. We 5 ITA NOS. 4017-4019/Del/2012 also find that the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nestle Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 345. We see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) nor any flaw or infirmity has been pointed out by the Ld. DR so as to take different view in the matter. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly upheld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar ... vs Assessee on 8 December, 2014

CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2005) 94 TTJ (Del) 53 to support the grant of deduction for commission payment. In that case for the A.Ys. 1997-98 and 1998-99, the assessee paid royalty for technical know-how for the first time, which was not paid earlier and the tribunal held it to be deductible. This decision does not advance the case of the assessee any further. The reason for our conclusion is that in that case the factum of the assessee having received technical services was not denied. Whereas in our case, even the preliminary requirement of LG Korea having rendered any service to the assessee, is unproved. In our considered opinion, the AO was fully justified in holding on page 29 of the assessment order that : 'the claim of the assessee that payment of export commission by it to M/s LGK for promoting CTVs abroad is a genuine expenditure is completely false, baseless and unjustified'. Thus it is seen that there is neither any positive 64 ITA No.5140/Del/2011 LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy. Cit. vs Excel Industries Ltd. on 29 August, 2005

In addition to the case law cited by the assessee, we also notice that in CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 435, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that bona fide belief of the employer that conveyance allowance is not taxable under section 10(14), then interest under section 201(1A) could be charged (i.e. the employer cannot be treated as assessee deemed to be in default without which interest under section 201(1A) could not have been charged).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 55 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 31 January, 2018

55. Further, we note that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samtel Colour Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court High Court followed the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Company India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 682 and held 95 that the admission fee paid toward corporate membership is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and not a capital expenditure . It has only facilitated smooth and efficient running of the business enterprises and did not add to profit earning apparatus of the business enterprise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 96 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Mehra And Sistani, New Delhi vs Dcit Cpc, Bengaluru on 22 November, 2022

(A.2.1) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. There is nothing in the records to suggest that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,25,497/- incurred by way of Club Expenses by the appellant assessee, was partly or wholly incurred for non business purposes. It is also not in dispute that the issue regarding allowability of Club Expenses is covered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue by aforesaid orders in the cases of CIT vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC); CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. 180 Page 4 of 6 ITA No.199 /Del/2021 Mehra and Sistani vs. DCIT, CPC taxmann.com 82 (Del); CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. 296 ITR 682 (Del); CIT vs. Sundaram Industreis Ltd. 240 ITR 335 (Mad); DCIT vs. Deloittee Touche Tohmatsu in ITA No.3017/Mum/2016 (Mum.Trib.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nestle India Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 April, 2007

5. We have heard the parties and perused the record of the case. The similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal, 'D' Bench, New Delhi in assessee's own case for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 in ITA Nos. 4545/Del/2000 and 2239/Del/2002 [reported as Addl. CIT v. Nestle India Ltd. (2005) 94 TTJ (Del) 53-Ed.] wherein the Tribunal has held thus:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next