GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground regarding sales tax incentives. The Tribunal admitted the ground and decided to adjudicate it, stating that appellate authorities are not fettered by the Goetz India Ltd. decision in admitting new claims.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Gujarat Guardian Ltd., engaged in float glass manufacturing, had international transactions with its associated enterprises. The TPO applied the CUP method, while the assessee preferred TNMM. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting the TPO's adjustment.
What were the issues?
Whether the CUP method was appropriate for benchmarking international transactions and whether sales tax incentives received by the assessee constitute capital receipts taxable under the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT1,842 citing284 ITR 323 · 2006 · SC
- CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.968 citing312 ITR 254 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.814 citing198 ITR 297 · 1992 · SC · Read judgment
- TRF Ltd. v. CIT714 citing323 ITR 397 · 2010 · SC
- CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.577 citing306 ITR 392 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.120 citing294 ITR 451 · 2007 · HC · Read judgment
- Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT90 citing107 ITD 141 · 2007 · ITAT
- Karnataka in Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1) Bangalore10 citing283 Taxmann 98 · 2021 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, ‘H NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 92CA
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Airmeet Networks Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Assessing Officer, BengaluruITA 1487/BANG/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026