How many judgments cite General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT?

141 judgments on BharatTax cite General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (354 ITR 244), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148.

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 147 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

india interest

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Fresenius Kabi India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2095/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2095/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(1)

…ward to A.Y. 2006-07 and accordingly, disallowed the bad debt claim of Rs.67,98,436/- as the same was not 3 A.Y.2006-07 debited to P & L Account. In the process, the Assessing Officer missed the Vs. DCIT in Spl. Civil Application No.1773 of 2012 reported in 354 ITR 244. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee after relying on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Times Guarantee Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 4917 & 4918/Mum./2008. 5. Now, aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal by raising grou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2463/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.2463/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Ltd, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Public Utility Building, M. G. Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Respondent Pan : Aaack6554A Assessee By : Shri. Sachin Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Siddappaji R. N. Addl. Cit Heard On : 25.09.2018 Pronounced On : 28.09.2017 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Siddappaji R. N. Addl. CIT

Section 32(2)

…jurisdictional High Court in the matter of K a r n a t a k a c o - o p e r a t i v e M i l k P r o d u c e r s ' Federation Ltd. Vs. DCIT 53 DTR (Kar) 81, and also on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of General Motors India p. Ltd [354 ITR 244] and has submitted that since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional and Gujarat ITA.2463/Bang/2017 Page - 4 High Courts, therefore the appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed. 06. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record as also the citations quoted before us.…

The Dy. CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Gujarat Water Resources Development Corpn. Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 716/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 32(2)

…ed that while remitting the issue back to the file of the AO, the AO be directed to re-examine the issue in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. (supra) and General Motors India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 354 ITR 244 (Guj). In the light of the consensus broadly arrived between the parties and in consonance with the findings of the CIT(A), the issue is remitted back in its entirety to the file of the AO for de novo examination for eligibility of set off under s.32(2) of the Act after verification of factual aspects. ITA No. 716/Ahd/14 [DCIT vs. Gujarat Water…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Ambuja Cement India बिाम/ ACIT CIR 3(1) Private Ltd. (Since Merged Aayakar Bhavan, with Holcim India P. Ltd.), v. M.K. Road, 106, Maker Chamber-III, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AACCA3390A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Soumen Adak & Shri. Harish Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Satish…

Asst CIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Infrastructjure Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 4018/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Cit 6(2)(2), M/S Essar Infrastructure – Room No. 563, Services Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg, Churchgate, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 Pan: Aabce3527C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 143Section 14ASection 32Section 32(2)

…ion of his predecessor passed in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10, however, as pointed out by the Ld. counsel this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 354 ITR 244 (Guj) in which the Hon’ble High. In the said case, the issue before the Hon’ble High Court was that whether the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 could be allowed to be carried forward and set off after a period of 8 years or it would be governed by section 32 as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. The Hon’ble Court…

ITO Ward-1(1)(2), Agra vs. Mamta Singh, Agra

ITA 155/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Jalma Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) Pan :Aobps 7284 K (Respondent)

Section 148

…h in Para 13 has held that " For, this reason, the assessment order is null and void and it is quashed as such, Nothing further survives for adjudication." The Hon'ble Agra Bench relied on the order of General Motor (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT reported in 354 ITR 244(Guj.), M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs CIT reported in 308 ITR 38(Del.), GKN Drivshaft Vs ITO-259 ITR 19(SC), KSS Petron Private Limited Vs ACIT order dated 03/10/2016, ITA No 224 OF 2014(Bombay High Court). In Para 9 of the ITAT order, the Bench has quoted the operating part of General Motors(supra) as under : I " The Assessing Officer…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S All India Technologies Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 52/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 40

…ourt’s decision in Peerlees General Finance and Investment Co. (2016) 73 Taxman 258 (SC) is quoted in support. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant substantive grievance. Hon'ble Gujarat high court’s decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) as relied upon in CIT(A)’s findings has rejected Revenue’s identical argument seeking to restrict a depreciation claim only upto eight assessment year(s). Its latter plea quoting hon'ble apex court’s decision hereinabove (supra) is also found to be devoid on merit as the assessment year before their lordships is 1998-99 whereas we are deali…

M/S Golden Triangle Fort & Palace, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 277/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR

Section 153ASection 154Section 32(2)

…, thus in accordance with the said amendment, the unabsorbed depreciation deserves to be allowed. 2.2 That the ld. CIT(A) further erred in 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, therefore, the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted.’’ ITA No. 278/JP/2018 – A.Y. 2011-12 ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,09,013/- by observing that the disallowance so made by the AO was a mistake apparent on record and holding the same as re…

Saboo Sodium Chloro Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 32(2)

…action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A), however, could not succeed. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the issue is purely legal in nature and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 354 ITR 244 (Guj.) has considered this issue and decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee on 1st day of April, 2002 will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Cour…

Bfil Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5729/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ame cannot be allowed in this assessment year. (c) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal while allowing the assessee-respondents' claim follows the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT reported in [2013] 354 ITR 244 (Guj) wherein on identical facts it was held that the unab sorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1997-98 up to the assessment year 2001-02 could be allowed to be set off, if it was still unabsorbed on April 1, 2001. The above decision also placed upon the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 14 of 2001, dated November 22, 2001 (see [2…

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6466/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Sunshield Chemicals Income Tax-8(2)(2), Vs. Ltd., Phoenix House, ‘A’ Room No. 348, M.K. Wing, 4Th Floor, 462, Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aafcs8219K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Rai, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Ajit Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Rai, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner of M/s Sunshield Chemicals Income Tax-8(2)(2), Vs. Ltd., Phoenix House, ‘A’ Room No. 348, M.K. Wing, 4th floor, 462, Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 PAN No. AAFCS8219K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Saurabh Rai, DR Assessee by : Mr. Ajit Shah, AR Date of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-6(1)(2), M/S Aristo Reality R. No. 508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Development Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 601, Symphony Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan No. Aaacl0593J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Aarju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Lakhani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia, DR

Section 143

…amended section 32(2) in AY 2002-03 and therefore, the above loss is only allowed to be carried forward for 8 years only. The assessee submitted before the AO that the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 354 ITR 244 is applicable to the instant case. However, the AO was not convinced with the said reply and differentiating the decision in General Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and then relying on the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Times Guarantee Ltd., the AO denied the set off of depreciation loss from AY 1997-98 to AY 2001-02 amounting to Rs.3,75…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vijay Vision P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4961/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -13(3)(3) V. M/S. Vijay Vision Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 227 Spec House, Ramchandra 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Lane Extension, Malad (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaacv 2144 B

For Appellant: Shri Nitin SardaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 32

…-97 and 1997-98 beyond eight years against the income of the assessee in subsequent years. While holding so the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [354 ITR 244]. Therefore, in view of the above discussion we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 6 M/s. Vijay Vision Pvt. Ltd. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 17th April, 2018. (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 17/04/2018 Giridhar, Sr.PS…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Searock Enterpries P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 972/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Income Tax Officer 13(2)(2) M/S Searock Enterprises 1S Floor, Room No. 147, Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C/O Economy Refrigeration Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ltd. Kirti Bldg, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400 023 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabc4160P

For Appellant: S.G. Dandawate & Co., ARFor Respondent: V Justin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32Section 32(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM Income Tax Officer 13(2)(2) M/s Searock Enterprises 1s Floor, Room No. 147, Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C/o Economy Refrigeration Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ltd. Kirti Bldg, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400 023 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AABC4160P Revenue by : V Justin, DR Assessee by : S.G. Dandawate & Co., AR Date of hearing: 28-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 21-03-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-21, Mumbai, in appeal N…

ITO 5(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle Restaurants P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 966/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 966/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer 5(1)(4) Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited R.No.569, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 1001-1002,10Th Floor, Tower-3 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Indiabulls Finance Centre Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafh-1333-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shree Kumar Kabra,Ld. Ar Revenue By : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shree Kumar Kabra,Ld. ARFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…nt year for which the aforesaid allowance was first computed. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in relying on the judgment of Hon. Gujrat High Court in the case of M/s General Motors P. Ltd. Vs DCIT 354 ITR 244 without appreciating the fact that in the SLP against the said order the Hon. SC has kept the question of law open. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 5(1)(4), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 13/11/2014. The solitary issue involved in the appeal is set-off of brought forwarded unabsorbed dep…

Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…nary objections by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the assessment year for which such notice has been issued.” 21. Further the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motor India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj.), has held as under :- The AO was required to first decide the objection of the assessee filed u/s.148 of the Act and serve a copy of the order on the assessee and after giving some reasonable time to the assessee for challenging the order, it was open to him to pass an assessment order. This was not done by the AO. Therefore, the assessmen…

Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 420/CTK/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal/S.D.Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Chennai vs. Manali Petrochemicals Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1273/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(2)

…cision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Times Guaranty Limited in ITA No.4917 & 4918/Mum/2008 dated 30.06.2010. By following various decisions including the decision in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 354 ITR 244 and also decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of KMC Speciality Hospitals India Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), the ld. CIT(A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee. We have gone through the orders of the Tribunal as well as the decision in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Gujarat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Manali Petrochemicals Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1272/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(2)

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Media & Communicaton Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 772/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1167/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- बनाम/ In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road 16(1) Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mihir Nanavdekar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…ITA No. 9/Mum/2013 order dated 29/01/2016, a copy of which has been placed on record. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the cited order has followed the ratio of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [354 ITR 244]. The revenue could not place on record any contrary judgment to controvert the same. The same is further fortified by CBDT circular No.14 of 2001. Respectfully following the binding judicial precedent, we dismiss revenue’s appeal and concur with the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Assessee’s Appeal ITA N…