G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. DRP

338 ITR 416High Court2011#20557 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. DRP

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1723/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri S.P.ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…es not have the power to consider the issues which are not proposed in the draft assessment order. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P Ltd vs. DRP (338 ITR 416 (Kar.). He also drew our attention to the provisions of section 114C(6) of the Act in support of this contention. Without prejudice to the above technical ground, the assessee prayed that the corporate overhead should not be allocated because section 10B contemplates that only profits and gains derived from undertaking is eligible for deduction a…

Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2720/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2720/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)

…ations suggested by the Assessing Officer.” 9. It must be noted that the explanation was inserted to provisions of sub-section (8) of Sec.144C to over-rule the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of G.E. Electricals Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 338 ITR 416 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that the jurisdiction of the DRP would be confined to decide the variations that have been proposed in the draft assessment order and contested before it. Thus, it is clear that the Explanation was inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospect effect from 01.04.2009 so as to empower the ld. D.R.P. to conside…

Uniliver India Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…o enhance only in respect of variations proposed in the draft assessment order against which the assessee has raised objections. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v/s DRP, [2011] 338 ITR 416 (Kar.); and ii) Dredging International N.V. v/s ADIT, [2011] 15 taxmann.com 198 (Mum.). 8. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, the Explanation to section 144C(8) of the Act brought to the statute by Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 1st April 2009, cannot expand the scope of the main provision. He submitted, the purpose of bringin…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…ent order. Referring to the explanation to Section 144C(8) of the Act, he submitted that this explanation was brought in by the Finance Act, 2012 to overcome the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. [338 ITR 416], which had taken a view that the DRP did not have the jurisdiction to look beyond the variations proposed in the draft assessment order and pointed out that this amendment was made with retrospective effect. He argued that when the DRP has power to consider any matter arising out of an assessment proceedings and hence, even if the DRP does not c…