CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co.

18 ITR 472Supreme Court of India1950#3492 most cited
34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 5Section 12(5)Section 13Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271AASection 44DA

Issues it is cited on

dependent agent peproximate nexussection 10(35)service pefixed place pesection 135csr expenditureweighted deductionsection 35(2ab)section 10(34)transactional net margin methodpermanent establishment

Judgments citing CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co.

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

…ome to the alleged PE has to be basis transfer pricing exercise, taking into account the functions performed, the assets employed and the risks assumed by the alleged PE. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co: 18 ITR 472 (SC) observed that where a person is carrying on manufacture and sale, the profits received relate firstly to his business as manufacturer and secondly, to his trading operations; profit or loss has to be apportioned in a business-like manner and according to well established principles of accountancy. He submitted that in such cases, the Supreme…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…ia. The only activities which the assessee carried on in India through its PE were : a) Net work planning, b) Negotiations in connection with the sale of equipment, and c) The signing of the supply and installation contracts. In the case of Ahmadbhai Umarbhar 18 ITR 472, the Supreme Court held that the income attributable to the manufacturing activity should be more then the income attributable to the activity of sale. In the case of Annamalia Timber Trust and Co. vs. CIT 41 ITR 781, the Madras High Court approved the tribunal's decision that 10% of the income can be attributed to the signing of the contracts in…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…ia. The only activities which the assessee carried on in India through its PE were : a) Net work planning, b) Negotiations in connection with the sale of equipment, and c) The signing of the supply and installation contracts. In the case of Ahmadbhai Umarbhar 18 ITR 472, the Supreme Court held that the income attributable to the manufacturing activity should be more then the income attributable to the activity of sale. In the case of Annamalia Timber Trust and Co. vs. CIT 41 ITR 781, the Madras High Court approved the tribunal's decision that 10% of the income can be attributed to the signing of the contracts in…

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…1969) 71 [TR 713 (Bom) 10 7 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) 5 8 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) CIT vs. 5 Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 9 CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu 53 ITR 114(SC) CIT vs. 5 Ahmedbhai Umarbhay & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC) 10 CIT vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhay & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC) 5 11 CIT vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn.253 ITR 303 (Punj. & 5 Har.) 12 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co., 106 ITR 884 (Bom.) 23 P a g e 4 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 13 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chetnavis (SM) AIR 1932 1 PC 178 14 DCIT vs. T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) 13 15 D…

TARUN HARSHI MOTTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2602/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltarun Harshi Motta, 9 Square, Ramdas Sutrale Marg, Off. Chandavarkar Lane, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaepm9064A ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Central Circle-6(1), Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hitesh M. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr. DR
Section 250

…he previous years the appellant has shown and declared the Plot of Land at Toobarahali, Bangalore as stock-in-trade. (d) The CTA) failed to discuss the case laws of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant in the case of CIT VS Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. (18 ITR 472) Barendra Prasad Ray Vs CIT (129 ITR 295) and the case law of Bombay High Court the case of Bhogilal H Patel Vs CIT (74 ITR 682). The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition of income from business of Rs. 7,96,77,469- be deleted and the income declared under the head Capital Gains as Long Term Capital gains on the sale of plot of Land to…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…be attributed to the alleged PE of SMC in India and the assessee’s case the goods have been manufactured outside India and purchases made out of India. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC). He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. vs CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC) and the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co. 292 ITR 416 (SC). 93. To buttress the contention that the AO has on adhoc and arbitrary basis assumed that the profit of SMC at…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…be attributed to the alleged PE of SMC in India and the assessee’s case the goods have been manufactured outside India and purchases made out of India. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC). He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. vs CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC) and the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co. 292 ITR 416 (SC). 93. To buttress the contention that the AO has on adhoc and arbitrary basis assumed that the profit of SMC at…

DAICEL CHIRAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 87/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Daicel Chiral Vs. 1. Deputy Technologies India Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle Medchal, 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. National Faceless Pan : Aaccd8423B. Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Pradeep Revenue By: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri N. PradeepFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Daicel Chiral Vs. 1. Deputy Technologies India Private Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Circle Medchal, 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. National Faceless PAN : AACCD8423B. Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri N. Pradeep Revenue by: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date of hearing: 01.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 03.02.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal is filled by the assessee f…

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

…he word "earned" even though it does not appear in section 4 of the Act has been very often used in the course of the judgments bv learned Judges both in the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, (Vide CIT Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay [1950] 18 ITR 472, and CIT Madras v. K.R.M.T.T. Thiagaraja Chetty & Co. [1953] 24 ITR 525at 533). It has also been used by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Commissioners of Taxation v. Kirk [1900] A.C. 588 at 592. The concept, however, cannot be divorced from that of income accruing to the assessee. If income has accrued to the assessee it is certainl…

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1977/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma
Section 132Section 142Section 144C(4)Section 153ASection 80Section 801BSection 80I

…ure should have been provided, so that such an abnormal profit @ 58.66% could be checked. 9.6 In support of above submissions, Mr. Srivastava has placed on strong reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. [1950] 18 ITR 472 for legal proposition that, quote " profits received relate firstly to his business as a manufacturer, secondly to his trading operations, and thirdly to his business of import and export. Profit or loss has to be apportioned between these businesses in a business like manner and according to well established principles or accountancy." Unquote. H…

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1976/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma
Section 144C(4)Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…ure should have been provided, so that such an abnormal profit @ 58.66% could be checked. 9.6 In support of above submissions, Mr. Srivastava has placed on strong reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. [1950] 18 ITR 472 for legal proposition that, quote " profits received relate firstly to his business as a manufacturer, secondly to his trading operations, and thirdly to his business of import and export. Profit or loss has to be apportioned between these businesses in a business like manner and according to well established principles or accountancy." Unquote. H…

ITOCHU CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7615/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT]–DR

…td. 265 Taxman 542 (SC); 18 ESS Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. et Compagnie (ITA. Nos. 3760 & 4542/Del/2016); 19 Anglo French Textile Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 23 ITR 101 (SC); 20 Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 103 ITR 548 (SC); 21 CIT Vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC); 22 The Anglo–French Textile Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC); 23 Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. Vs. CIT 41 ITR 781 (Mad.) 24 CIT Vs. Bertrams Scotts Ltd. 31 Taxman 444 (Cal.); 25 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA. 01 of 2012); 26 Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); 27 CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC…

ITOCHU CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 360/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT]–DR

…td. 265 Taxman 542 (SC); 18 ESS Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. et Compagnie (ITA. Nos. 3760 & 4542/Del/2016); 19 Anglo French Textile Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 23 ITR 101 (SC); 20 Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 103 ITR 548 (SC); 21 CIT Vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC); 22 The Anglo–French Textile Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 25 ITR 27 (SC); 23 Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. Vs. CIT 41 ITR 781 (Mad.) 24 CIT Vs. Bertrams Scotts Ltd. 31 Taxman 444 (Cal.); 25 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA. 01 of 2012); 26 Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); 27 CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC…

DCIT CIRCLE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHIVAAMI CLOUND SERVICES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2599/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143(2)

…39. To the same effect are the observations of Satyanarayana Rao J. in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. 119501 18 ITR 333 (Mad) and Mukherjea J. in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay [19501 18 ITR 472 (SC) where this passage from the Judgment of Mukerji J. in Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. v. Secretary of State for India 1 I.T. C. 363, is approved and adopted. It is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assessee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accr…

IIANTUS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2358/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ome is another aspect. The third aspect is the accrual of the income. Though it is true, as held by Kania, Ilantus Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 14 C.J., speaking for a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in CIT v. AhmedbhaiUmarbhai, (1950) 18 ITR 472 (SC) at page 479, that the place where the source of income is located may not necessarily be the place where the income also accrues, that question is not material in the present case because herein we are concerned only with the question as to the location of the source. The real question is whether the export sales proceeds received from goods…

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1380/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36Section 43(5)(d)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. ACIT, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi PAN No. AAACD0132H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. R. S. Singhavi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of hearing: 28/08/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. This appeal is filed by M/s Dharmpal Satyapal & co, (The…

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5(2)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Voith Paper GmbH, Vs. DDIT, C/o-Mohinder Puri & Co., Circle-2(2), CAs, 1A-1D, Vandhna, 11, New Delhi Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi PAN :AADCV3751B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Akshay Uppal, CA Respondent by Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT(DR) (Intl. Taxation) Date of hearing 28.11.2019 Date of pronouncement 21.02.2020 ORDER PERO.P. KANT, AM: The assessee has preferred this appeal against the final assessment order…

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…d have been provided, so that such an abnormal profit @ 58.66% could be checked. 9.6 In support of the above submissions, Mr. Srivastava has placed on strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. AhmedbhaiUmarbhai& Co. [1950] 18 ITR 472 for the legal proposition that, quote "The profits received relate firstly to his business as a manufacturer, secondly to his trading operations, and thirdly to his business of import and export. Profit or loss has to be apportioned between these businesses in a business like manner and according to well established principles or accountancy." Unq…

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…d have been provided, so that such an abnormal profit @ 58.66% could be checked. 9.6 In support of the above submissions, Mr. Srivastava has placed on strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. AhmedbhaiUmarbhai& Co. [1950] 18 ITR 472 for the legal proposition that, quote "The profits received relate firstly to his business as a manufacturer, secondly to his trading operations, and thirdly to his business of import and export. Profit or loss has to be apportioned between these businesses in a business like manner and according to well established principles or accountancy." Unq…

AMADEUS GLOBAL TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SA,SPAIN vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1494/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiamadeus Global Travel Vs. Adit, Distribution Sa Circle-1(1), (Now Known As Amadeus It International Taxation, Group Sa), New Delhi Salvador De Madariaga, E- 28027, Madrid, Spain Pan: Aafca9629P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 80HSection 9

…India can be brought to tax in India as substantial and substantive part of the appellant‘s activities are carried outside India. The principle of attribution has been upheld by the Hon‘bleSupreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs AhmedbhaiUmarbhai& Co.: 18 ITR 472. The Court observed that where a person is carrying on manufacture and sale, the profits received relate firstly to his business as manufacturer and secondly, to his trading operations. Profit or loss has to be apportioned in a business-like manner and according to well established principles of accountancy. In such cases, the Court held that it w…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2