General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

354 ITR 244High Court2013#716 most cited

What is General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Unabsorbed depreciation from Assessment Year 1997-98 to 2001-02, carried forward to AY 2002-03, is governed by Section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001, allowing its unlimited carry forward and set off against income of subsequent years. Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 challenging such set-off require valid reasons and new tangible material.

141

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

General Motors India v. DCIT · 354 ITR 244 · Section 32(2) · unabsorbed depreciation · carry forward and set off · Finance Act 2001 · unlimited period · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment proceedings · valid reasons for reassessment · new tangible material

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

indiainterest

Judgments citing General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Krishna Build Home Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Holding Charge of ITO Ward 4(2)), Jaipur

ITA 142/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(5)Section 24

…of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC). The ld. A/R further relied on the following decisions: - (i) Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 371 ITR 81 (Guj) (ii) General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) (iii) Allana Cold Storage Ltd. Vs. ITO and others (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bombay) (iv) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of M/s Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF Vs ITO ward 6(5) Jaipur (ITA No 354/JP/2019 order dated 06/10/2020 Therefore in view of the above cited decision of jurisdictional ITAT in the case of M/s Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF wherein several…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…999-2000 became unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2002-03 and subsequent years and therefore, the same could be set-off during any number of years. The said position was approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT (354 ITR 244) wherein Hon’ble High Court referred to Board’s Circular No. 14 of 2001 and held that any unabsorbed depreciation as available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32(2) as amended by Finance Act. 2001 and not by the provisions of Sec.32(2) as it stood before the amendment. Reliance was al…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Taxpayers Units), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Copper Ltd

ITAT/8/2018HC Calcutta01 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260ASection 32Section 32(2)

…Ltd. reported in [2020] 428 ITR 237 (Mad) identical issue was considered wherein the Court noted various decisions of the other High Courts and in particular the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in General Motors India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2013] 354 ITR 244(Guj.) as well as the circular no.14 of 2001 dated 9th November, 2001 issued by the Central Board of Direct 3 Taxes (CBDT) and granted relief to the assessee. The operative portion of the judgement reads as follows: “ * * * * * * * * * 4. The short issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether, in the f…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Jct Liimited

ITAT/162/2017HC Calcutta25 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1983/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Framed The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration: “(A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Erred In Law In

Section 2Section 260ASection 263Section 32

…loss without any restriction on the time limit. This aspect has been dealt with elaborately in the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 364/210 Taxman 20/[2013] 354 ITR 244 wherein the relevant portions are as follows : "37. The CBDT Circular clarifies the intent of the amendment that it is for enabling the industry to conserve sufficient funds to replace plant and machinery and accordingly the amendment dispenses with the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set- off of unabsorbed depreciation. The amendmen…

ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch vs. Sns Textiles Limited, Ankleshwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Sns Textiles Ltd. Income Tax Circle-2, 330-A, Opp. Atul Products Vs Bharuch, 2Nd Floor, Harikunj Ltd., Gidc, Ankleshwar- Building, Above Bank Of 393002 Baroda, Station Road, Pan : Aadcs 4565 N Bharuch-392001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 32(2)(iii)Section 72(3)

…be allowed to be carry forward and set-off beyond period of eight years , in view of amended section 32(2). This decision was rendered after following the decision in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 364/ 210 Taxman 20 / 354 ITR 244 (Guj.). Similarly the Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT -2 v. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 370 (Delhi) / [2018] 400 ITR 569 (Del) held that unabsorbed depreciation that was carry forward up to assessment year 2001-02 would be carry forward and set-off against profits and gains of subsequent year 9 M/s SNS…

Kishore H Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7371/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.201…

Kishore H Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7370/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.201…

Jasmin K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7368/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 68Section 69

…the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - (i) Bayer Materials Science (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT [382 ITR 333 (Bom.)] (ii) Vishwanth Engineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.201…