GE HYDRO FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of duty drawback written off and held that interest under Section 234B is not chargeable when tax is deducted at source by the buyer. Interest under Section 234C was to be charged only on returned income.
What were the facts?
The assessee, GE Hydro France, a foreign company, appealed against assessment orders for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning income from offshore supplies, onshore activities, and fees for technical services. The Assessing Officer (AO) made significant additions to the returned income.
What were the issues?
The key issues involved the taxability of offshore supply receipts, the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India, the applicability of Section 44BBB, and the correct computation of interest and penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143,Section 144C,Section 44BBB,Section 28,Section 43B,Section 40,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 270A,Section 115JAA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(30)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.
- Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT394 citing288 ITR 408 · 2007 · SC
- DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.360 citing292 ITR 416 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- DIT v. Nokia Networks OY276 citing358 ITR 259 · 2013 · HC
- DIT v. Ericsson A.B256 citing343 ITR 470 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.166 citing291 ITR 482 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc.162 citing399 ITR 34 · 2017 · SC
- CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal and Co.156 citing56 ITR 20 · 1965 · SC · Read judgment
- National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT69 citing101 TTJ 56 · 2016 · ITAT
- Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT55 citing365 ITR 1 · 2014 · HC
- Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax47 citing237 ITR 230 · 1999
- DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc.29 citing25 ITR 27 · 1954 · SC
- (International Taxation) v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.29 citing426 ITR 1 · 2020 · SC
- Net App B.V v. DDIT25 citing78 Taxmann.com 97 · 2017 · HC
- CIT v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.21 citing109 ITR 158 · 1977 · HC
- Geo Consultants v. DIT21 citing323 ITR 277 · 2010
- Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT21 citing237 CTR 438 · 2011 · HC
- Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. v. CIT20 citing27 ITR 700 · 1955 · HC
- 416 (SC), DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd. v. CIT19 citing41 ITR 781 · HC
- SC), The Anglo French Textile Co Ltd vs CIT: 25 ITR 27 (SC), Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. v. CIT18 citing31 Taxmann 444 · HC
- DDIT v. Mitsui & Co Ltd.14 citing118 Taxmann.com 379 · 2020 · HC
- 56 ITR 20 (SC), CIT v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.12 citing164 ITR 401 · 1987 · HC
- IT Solution: 399 ITR 34 (SC), DIT v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd.12 citing399 ITR 505 · 2017 · HC
- 237 CTR 438 (Del), DIT v. Nokia Networks OY11 citing182 ITD 479 · 2020 · ITAT
- DIT(IT) v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.11 citing117 Taxmann.com 870 · 2020 · SC
- Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT10 citing242 Taxmann 371 · 2016 · SC
- 10 citing
- 190 Taxmann 3149 citing190 Taxmann 314
- CIT v. Wackhardt International Ltd.9 citing314 ITR 11 · 2009 · HC
- 142 Taxmann.com 5098 citing142 Taxmann.com 509 · ITAT
- 426 ITR 1(SC), DCIT v. Roxon OY8 citing106 ITD 489 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:
The appeals in ITA No.2085 and 2086/Del/2022 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 arise out of the order of the Assessing Officer/ ACIT, Circle- International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO, in short] dated 29.07.2022. Identical issues are involved in both the appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2085/Del/2022 for AY 2018-19:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the asse
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 144C
- Mishoo Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 19/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 18/KOL/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2016-2017
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 17/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 16/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-2015
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 15/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026