Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Nestle India Limited on 6 February, 2009

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. on 30 March, 2011

Insofar as decision in Nestle India Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same was pressed into service for limited purpose, viz., burden was upon the AO to prove that the circumstances stipulated in special provision (like Section 92 of the Act in the instant case) and not upon the assessee. Though at the same ITA No.383 of 2009 Page 12 of 19 time, under provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act, the primary burden to substantiate the claim of deduction of expenditure lay on the assessee.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - A K Sikri - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Agra Beverages Corporation P. Ltd. on 25 January, 2011

11. It is clear from the highlighted portion extracted above that the Apex Court went to the extent of observing that once such an expenditure is incurred even in a case where business is not that of ITA No 966/09 & 836/2010 Page 8 of 9 the assessee itself, that would not be of any consequence. We may also take note of another judgment of this Court in CIT Vs. Nestle India, 296 ITR 682. In this case the assessee had claimed deduction of ` 2 lacs under Section 37 (2) of the Act, the expenditure incurred was paid towards club member-ship fees but the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of ` 1 lakh i.e. 50% of the membership fee paid under Section 31 (2) of the Act. The view of the AO was accepted by the CIT (A) but the Tribunal allowed the entire expenditure. Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, this Court observed that since the AO had allowed the deduction of 50% of ` 2 lacs under Section 37 (2) of the Act, it was clear that the AO himself accepted the fact that the expenditure incurred was for the business purpose, otherwise, the entire amount would have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. On this premise, it was held that the assessee was entitled to entire deduction as claimed.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ??? Iii on 16 March, 2015

Reference can be also ITA 16/2014 & connected matters Page 41 of 142 made to the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT versus Nestle India Limited [2011] 337 ITR 103 (Del), holding that the question of reasonableness or measure of expenses to be allowed cannot be a subject matter of adjustment or disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 38 - S Khanna - Full Document

Cit vs At & T Communication Services India Pvt ... on 19 January, 2012

8. Thereafter, the Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) and referred to the decision relied upon by the respondent-assessee in CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. (2005) 275 ITR 1 (Del) and decision dated 9th May, 2007 in ITA No. 641/2006 titled Oracle Software India Ltd. vs. CIT. However, it was held that the tax had been deposited only in November, ITA No. 526/2011 Page 5 of 10 2001, and therefore, in view of Section 40(a)(i), the deduction as an expense would be available in the next assessment year and not in the assessment year in question. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - S Khanna - Full Document
1