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

Times Guaranty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4260/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountanat Member & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Memebr

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 32(2)Section 72

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANAT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ITA No. 4260/Mum/2013 Assessment year : 2006-07 Times Guaranty Ltd vs ACIT-1(3), Mumbai Times of India Building Dr D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 PAN : AABCT2481Q APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri S Venkataraman -AR Respondent by Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr DR Date of hearing 03-10-2019 Date of pronouncement 06-11-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Member : 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 16-01-2013 for as…

Prothious Engineering Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7281/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2211 & 2212/MUM/2015, A.Ys : 2009-10 TO 2014-15 : 845/MUM/2016, 561 & 7250/MUM/2017 & 7281/MUM/2018 Prothious Engineering Services vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2)/ Private Limited, DCIT, Range-10(3)(2), Unit 608, A-wing, 6th floor, Mumbai. (Respondent) Atrium 1-MTR, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069. PAN : AADCP5194J (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Arijit Chackravarty & Shri Abhisek Tilak Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 19/09/…

Prothious Engineering Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7250/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2211 & 2212/MUM/2015, A.Ys : 2009-10 TO 2014-15 : 845/MUM/2016, 561 & 7250/MUM/2017 & 7281/MUM/2018 Prothious Engineering Services vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2)/ Private Limited, DCIT, Range-10(3)(2), Unit 608, A-wing, 6th floor, Mumbai. (Respondent) Atrium 1-MTR, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069. PAN : AADCP5194J (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Arijit Chackravarty & Shri Abhisek Tilak Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 19/09/…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 561/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2211 & 2212/MUM/2015, A.Ys : 2009-10 TO 2014-15 : 845/MUM/2016, 561 & 7250/MUM/2017 & 7281/MUM/2018 Prothious Engineering Services vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2)/ Private Limited, DCIT, Range-10(3)(2), Unit 608, A-wing, 6th floor, Mumbai. (Respondent) Atrium 1-MTR, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069. PAN : AADCP5194J (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Arijit Chackravarty & Shri Abhisek Tilak Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 19/09/…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 845/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2211 & 2212/MUM/2015, A.Ys : 2009-10 TO 2014-15 : 845/MUM/2016, 561 & 7250/MUM/2017 & 7281/MUM/2018 Prothious Engineering Services vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2)/ Private Limited, DCIT, Range-10(3)(2), Unit 608, A-wing, 6th floor, Mumbai. (Respondent) Atrium 1-MTR, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069. PAN : AADCP5194J (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Arijit Chackravarty & Shri Abhisek Tilak Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 19/09/…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcir RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2212/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2211 & 2212/MUM/2015, A.Ys : 2009-10 TO 2014-15 : 845/MUM/2016, 561 & 7250/MUM/2017 & 7281/MUM/2018 Prothious Engineering Services vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2)/ Private Limited, DCIT, Range-10(3)(2), Unit 608, A-wing, 6th floor, Mumbai. (Respondent) Atrium 1-MTR, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069. PAN : AADCP5194J (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Arijit Chackravarty & Shri Abhisek Tilak Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 19/09/…

Prothious Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcir RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2211/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chackravarty &For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2211 & 2212/MUM/2015, A.Ys : 2009-10 TO 2014-15 : 845/MUM/2016, 561 & 7250/MUM/2017 & 7281/MUM/2018 Prothious Engineering Services vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2)/ Private Limited, DCIT, Range-10(3)(2), Unit 608, A-wing, 6th floor, Mumbai. (Respondent) Atrium 1-MTR, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069. PAN : AADCP5194J (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Arijit Chackravarty & Shri Abhisek Tilak Revenue by : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 19/09/…

M/S. Tnt India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Batra, C.A &For Respondent: Shri E.S Nagendra Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1403/Bang/2010 Assessment year : 2006-07 IT(TP)A No.1218/Bang/2011 Assessment year : 2007-08 TNT India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. TheDy. Commissioner of Income-tax, No.82/1, Richmond Road, Circle-12(4), Bengaluru-560 025. Bengaluru. PAN – AAACT 6649 K. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Dhanesh Batra, C.A & Ms. Chandni Shah, C.A Respondent by : Shri E.S Nagendra Prasad, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 20.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2019 O R D E…

Bulls & Bears Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1598/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Bulls & Bears Finance Ltd., Vs. Office No.B-2, Marine Chambers, Ito, Range –3(1)(2), 43, New Marine Lines, Mumbai Opp: Sndt College, Churchgate, Mumbai [Pan : Aaacb5047K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 50Section 50C

…“10. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Limited Vs. DCIT [2013] 354 ITR 244 (Gujarat), wherein the issue regarding unabsorbed depreciation available to assessee as on 01-04-2002 will be dealt in accordance with provisions of section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act 2001 and not by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act as it stood before the amendment Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in General Motors India (P ) Limited…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Jain Irrigation System Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1184/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MaheshwariFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandia Kanchan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72A

…4 to 1999-2000 claimed by the assessee has been rightly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 82 DTR 304. The ld. AR further submitted that the Special Bench decision rendered in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Times Guaranty Limited (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 841 & 842 of 2011 vide order dated 03-08-2018. The ld. AR filed a copy of order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the af…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S M M Rubber Company Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2472/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.V.Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(2)

…ed an appeal before the CIT(A). In appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal and granted relief in respect of carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation and relied on the decision in the case of General Motors India P Ltd. vs. DCIT(354 ITR 244) and allowed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before The Tribunal. The learned DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in granting relief and carried forward unabsorbed depreciation without considering the fact that the amendment in Finance Act, 2001 and supported the order of the AO. Contra, the learned AR supported the ord…

DCIT - 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunshield Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5624/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sunshield Chemicals Income Tax 8(2)(2), Room Ltd. Phoenix House, “A Vs. No. 348, M.K. Road, Wing”, 4Th Floor, 462 Mumbai-400020. Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai- 400013. Pan No. Aafcs8219K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Falee H. Bilimoria, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Falee H. Bilimoria, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 115JSection 115WSection 143(3)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of M/s Sunshield Chemicals Income Tax 8(2)(2), Room Ltd. Phoenix House, “A Vs. No. 348, M.K. Road, Wing”, 4th floor, 462 Mumbai-400020. SenapatiBapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai- 400013. PAN No. AAFCS8219K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR Assessee by : Mr. Falee H. Bilimoria, AR Date of Hearing : 13/03/2019 Date of pronouncement: 30/04/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed…

The Dy. CIT, B.K. Circle, Palanpur vs. Banaskantha District Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd., Palanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2121/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed&Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 2121/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Banaskantha District Oil Bk Circle, Seeds Growers Co- Palanpur Operative Union Ltd. Palanpur Deesa Highway, At & Post:- Badarpura Taluka, Planpur Road, Palanpur- 385001 Pan:Aaa As1 902 L

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Kashani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Nilesh Thakkar, AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(2)

…n appeal relying upon the order passed by the appellate authority for assessment year 2013-14 the Ld. CIT(A) taking into consideration of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble judicial High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 354 ITR 244 (2012) allowed such claim of the assessee with the following observation :- "The second ground of appeal is against the disallowance of claim of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 38,01,74,402/- pertaining to AY 2001-02 and earlier years. While disallowing the claim the AO stated as under: "Scrutiny of the Assessment order revealed that the assessee…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Garware Polyster Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5757/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-9(3)(2) M/S Garware Polyster Ltd. 418, 4Th Floor, Garware House, Western Express Aayakar Bhavan, Highway, Vile Parle(East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacg0571D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Apurv Gandhi (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Apurv Gandhi (AR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…found that the issue is covered in favour of assessee vide decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cables Pvt Ltd dated 03.08.2018 and decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (354 ITR 244). Respectfully following the above decisions of the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) for allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the A.Ys 1999-00 and 2000-01 similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Motor and General Fine Ltd., reported in…

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vijay Vision Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

ITA 4813/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat K PatelFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…definitely and not by section 32(2) as it stood during the period AY 1997-98 to AY 2001-02 which restricted the carry forward' for eight years. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. 354 ITR 244 and other decisions which followed this decision. 5.3. I have considered the facts of the Assessing Officer, the submissions of the appellant and case laws cited carefully. The first issue is whether unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2001-02 and earlier years can be carried forward and adjusted as part of current depreciation in AY 2010-11. No doubt…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3595/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Ward-223, C.R. Building, Ip Aggarwal, Estate, New Delhi 301, G.K. House, 187-A, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash, New Delhi Pan :Acbpa8839L (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.353/Del/2009 [In Ita No.3595/Del/2009] Assessment Year: 2001-02 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aggarwal, Ward-223, C.R. Building, Ip 301, G.K. House, 187-A, Sant Estate, New Delhi Nagar, East Of Kailash, New Delhi Pan :Acbpa8839L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer and Others reported in 2002-TIOL-634-SC-IT, the reassessment proceedings are illegal and bad in law. In support of the contention, he relied on the following decisions: 1. General Motors India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 354 ITR 244, 2. M/s. Bharuch Enviro Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax, Bharuch; ITA No. 731 & 732/AHD/2007, dated 05.08.2014 6. The Ld. counsel also submitted that the reasons recorded are mere suspicion and being without any enquiry by the Assessing Officer, need to be quashed. In support of the contention he relied on the following decisions: 1. G & G Pha…

M/S. Golden Triangle Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 943/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 32(2)

…us in accordance with the said amendment, the unabsorbed depreciation deserves to be allowed. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) further erred in just ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s General Motors (India) ltd Vs. DCIT, reported in 354 ITR 244, and dismissing the appeal ab-initio. Appellant prays that on considering the said decision, the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted. 5. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2. Grievance of the assessee relates to withdrawal of asses…

ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ambar Protein Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 742/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 32(2)

…come present on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of the ld.DR, we have gone through the record. We find that view taken by the ld.CIT(A) is in line with the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of General Motors Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 354 ITR 244 (Guj). Hon’ble High Court has decided this appeal on 7th 3 April, 2015. Putting reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 4th February, 2019 at Ahmedabad. (AMA…

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Metal United Alloys Fusion Products Ltd., Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2287/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri P.S. Chaudhury, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…cisions cited in the order and also the decisions of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Bayer Material Sciences Pvt. Ltd., in WP.No.2502 of 2015 dt.27.01.2016 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India reported in 354 ITR 244 held that AO had not disposed the objections filed by the assessee either before the completion of the assessment nor during the assessment. She therefore, following the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, held that the assessment order to be bad-in-law. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1414/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.1414/Pun/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14, Pune. …....अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. A/P. Madhukarnagar, Patas, Tal. Daund, Dist –Pune. Pin-412 219 Pan : Aaatb1781B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

…aim of assessee. In second appeal before the Tribunal, assessee succeeded. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal 4 A.Y.2006-07 following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 354 ITR 244 (Guj.) allowed the assessee to carry forward unabsorbed deprecation of the earlier years and to be set off against income during the period of 8 years. The ld. DR has not brought before us any contrary decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the…