IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1851 to 1854/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2014-15 With ITA No.1123/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. S.C. Johnson Products Vs. ACIT, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-7(1), 5^th Floor, Plot No. 68, New Delhi Sector-44, Gurugram, Haryana PAN: AAACL3128M (Appellant) (Respondent)

With ITA Nos.1970, 1971/Del/2019 & 1209/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2015-16 ACIT/JCIT, Vs. M/s. S.C. Johnson Products Special Range-8, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 5^th Floor, Plot No. 68, Sector-44, Gurugram, Haryana PAN: AAACL3128M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Adv.

Department by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 18.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.04.2026

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM The instant batch of eight cases involves the single assessee herein “M/s. S.C. Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd.”. The tax payer’s and the Revenue’s three cross appeals each ITA Nos.1851 & 1970/Del/2019 (AY: 2009-10); ITA Nos.1853 & 1971/Del/2019 (AY: 2011-12); ITA Nos.1123/Del/2020 & 1209/Del/2021 (AY: 2015-16) along with former two more appeals ITA Nos.1852 & 1854/Del/2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2014-15, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi’s orders dated 28.12.2018 (for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11 & 2014-15) and 23.01.2020 (AY 2015-16), passed in case nos. 149/11- 12/80/16-17, 76/2013-14, 180/13-14/14/16-17 & 262/17-18, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2. It transpires during the course of hearing at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee’s instant five appeals and Revenue’s three appeals involve some common/identical issues. We thus proceed to decide the assessee’s five appeals ITA Nos. 1851, 1852, 1853 &

1854/Del/2019 and 1123/Del/2020 for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No.1851/Del/2019 (AY

2009-10) pleads the following substantive grounds:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in confirming the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 2,95,81,016/- made by the Ld. AO in respect of the secondary schemes stockist expenses.

1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that similar disallowance made in other years in appellant's own case was deleted by the appellate authorities and the revenue had not preferred an appeal against such deletion before the Hon'ble ITAT in those years.

1.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the adhoc disallowance on mere surmises, conjectures and irrelevant consideration that the appellant could not justify whether the transaction is principal to principal basis or not.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 56,93,783/- made by Ld. AO on account of reimbursement of expenses to SCJ US on a cost to cost basis by holding that the remittances made by the Appellant is "fee for technical services" covered under section 9(1)(vii)

of the Act.

2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the amount so reimbursed were on cost to cost basis which neither constitute an income chargeable to tax in India nor the same could be held "fee for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.

2.2 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the sum could not be held chargeable to tax in India and no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(i) of the Act in view of the provisions of relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements on account of narrower definition of 'Fee for Included Services'.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, Ld. CIT(A)

erred in upholding the adjustment done by the Ld. AO for a sum of Rs. 1,