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

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

ITA 1167/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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 vs. British Motor Car Co.(1934) Ltd

ITA/1031/2017HC Delhi09 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 147Section 32(2)Section 72Section 73

…riquip Private Ltd., (2003) 260 ITR 207 (Guj), and several other decisions. 5. The ITAT, by its impugned order, upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and relied upon a subsequent judgment of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 354 ITR 244 (Guj). That judgment had been followed by this Court in Motor & General Finance Ltd. v. ITO, 2017 80 Taxxman.com 14 (Delhi). Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the decision in Motor & General Finance Ltd (supra) cannot be considered conclusive because it was rendered in the context of validity of a re- opening…

M/S Rb Polymers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

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

ITA 202/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.202/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Rb Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cit(A)-2, Kolkata 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 4Th Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Floor, Suite-F, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 3117 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate. राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.1386/Cit(A)-2/Cir-4/2014- 15, Dated 22.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2011. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.That The Impugned Order Dated 22Nd December 2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax,(Appeals) - 2 Is Liable To Be Quashed Since It Has Been Passed In Haste Without Application Of Mind & Without Considering The Evidences Furnished & Submissions Made By The Appellant In Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32

…essee as on 1st April, 2002 would be carried forward indefinitely till the time it is set off against the profits & gains of subsequent years. The ld. Counsel placed relianceHigh Court at Ahmedabad in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in the 354 ITR 244 wherein it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off in the subsequent years without any time limit. Therefore it can be said that, current depreciation is deductible in the first place from the income of the business to which it relates. If such depreciation amount is larger than the amount of the profits of th…

Stanley Black & Decker India Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4169/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 145(2)Section 43B

…claim. The Revenue is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned CIT(A). 19. Learned AR submitted that this issue has since been settled in favour of the assessee by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244, wherein it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation or part thereof which was not set off till A.Y. 2002-03, will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act 8 Stanley Black & Decker India Limited as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act as it stood before the am…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Island Hotels Maharaj Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2993/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 32(2)Section 72Section 73

…d. in ITA No.4917/M/2008 (TIOL 340 ITAT Mum SB) dated 30.06.2010. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the Revenue filed this appeal with the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee to carry forward the brought forward depreciation pertaining to A.Y.2000-…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sterling Holiday Financial Services Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1128/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1128/Mds/2016 "नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2007-08

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

…m capital gains for the ay 2007-08, the claim is not allowed. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT(A) by following the judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj) and others reported in 370 ITR 107 (Guj) & 370 ITR 119 (Guj) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the Revenue filed this appeal with the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Ld CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) direct the AO to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation against capita…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Co.Ltdmandlik House, Mandlik Rd, Colaba, Mumbai

ITA 3805/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3805/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Asst Cit, Circle(2)(1), M/S The Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. Mandik House, R. No. 545, बिधम/ Mandik Road, Colaba, Aaykar Bhawan; Vs. Mumbai-400 005. M.K Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact4149A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, D.RFor Respondent: None

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

…consideration to the facts of the case and are of the considered view that the issue before us is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj), wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2001 could be carried forward indefinitely from A.Y. 2002-03 and onwards, and thus could be „set off‟ against the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07. We find that the Hon‟ble High Court in its aforesaid judgment after referri…

ACIT(Ltu), Circle-1, Kolkata vs. Hidustan Copper Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2126/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.) Assessment Year : 2008-2009 A.C.I.T. (LTU), Circle-1 Kolkata Vs M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. 6th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Tamara Bhawan, Shulik Bhawan 1, Ashutosh Chowdhury 180, Shanti Pally Avenue, Kolkata - 700107 Kolkata – 700009 PAN No. AAACH7409R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, AR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 12 .07.2017 ORDER Shri P.M.Jagtap, A.M. This appeal is preferred by the rev…

DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata vs. M/S. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2017AY 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate, ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he following year(s) to be set off against income under any head, like current depreciation, in perpetuity. 16. Before CIT(A) the Assessee relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of.General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT (Guj.) (2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj.) wherein, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that unabsorbed depreciation from AY. 1997-98 up to AY. 2001-02 got carried forward to AY. 2002-03 and became part thereof and it came to be governed by the provisions of sec. 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against income of subsequ…

Kaytee Cotsynth Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6985/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…he decision rendered by Special bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Times Guaranty Ltd (ITA No.4917 & 4918/Mum/2008). However, we notice that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken a different view of the matter in the case of General Motors India P Ltd (354 ITR 244). Since the decision of High Court, being a higher judicial body, is available in the matter, we are of the view that this issue has to be decided in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file with the direction to adjudicate them afres…

Ford India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. Dy CIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017

Section 143(3)

…case of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. [2014] 30 ITR(T) 638 (Chennai Tribunal), the Hon’ble Chennai Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 354 ITR 244 and held that, the unabsorbed depreciation prior to AY 2002-03 i.e. from AY 1999-2000 to AY 2001-02 would be available for carry forward and set off against income of subsequent years without any time limit in view of the section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. ITA Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 :- 20 -: The observations made by the Gujarat Hig…

Ford India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. Dy CIT Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2344/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017

Section 143(3)

Essar Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5389/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 43B

…'ble Supreme Court. 3. Next issue relates to deduction of claim for set off of unabsorbed depreciation relating to A.Y. 2011-12. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. (354 ITR 244), wherein it has been held that unabsorbed depreciation available at the end of A.Y. 2001-02 shall be added to the current depreciation relating to A.Y. 2002-03. We noticed from the order passed by the learned CIT(A) that the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the above said case was followed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of…

Dr.K.Sridhara, Chennai vs. Ait, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 148

…thorised Representative was that the objections were disposed of by the ld. Assessing Officer, only in his re-assessment order dated 28.03.2013, and by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd vs. DCIT 354 ITR 244, Assessing Officer having not passed a speaking order disposing of the objections, prior to the assessment, the whole proceedings stood vitiated. Further, according to him reason for reopening was stated to :- 3 -: be assessee’s claim for entire housing loan interest. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that in the reason given for reopen…

Essar Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3747/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)

…which results into dismissal of Ground No.2 of revenue’s appeal. Regarding the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of AY 1995-96, the Ld. AR has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT [354 ITR 244 Assessment Year 2010-11 23/08/2012] to contend that the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation has been allowed by the Gujarat High Court after considering the relevant statutory provisions of Section 32 as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001 and moreover, Special Leave Petition [SLP] filed by the revenue against the sai…

DCIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Properties Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2650/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. AR

Section 143(3)

ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunvin Industries P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2309/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2309/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer M/S. Sunvin Industries Pvt.Ltd. Room No.637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Nadinaka, Mithpada, Behind Sainik Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Hospital Parol Rd. Bhiwandi, Thane-421 302. Pan:Aaecs 3087 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Ms. Arju Goradia-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Usha Gopalan सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05.04.2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 13/02/2015 Of Cit(A)-9,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Textiles & Handloom,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2010,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3) On 13.3.2013,Determining Its Income At Rs.90.88 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Ms. Usha GopalanFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Goradia-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “जेजेजेजे” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“J”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2309/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income ta…

Emgee Cables & Communications Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 1 of the

ITA 390/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R.A.Verma (Addl. CIT)For Respondent: Shri S.R. Sharma &

Section 2Section 32Section 32(2)

…’ 5 ITA No. 390/JP/2014, ITA No. 357/JP/2014 & C.O. No. 16/JP/2014 M/s Emgee Cables & Communications Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Jaipur 3.2 Subsequently, the matter came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. 354 ITR 244 wherein the question for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court was “whether unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the A.Y 1997-98 could be allowed to be carried forward and set off after a period of 8 years or would it be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act 2001. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble…

Msoure (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 13/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…ering the limited functions performed, risks assumed and assets utilized by these entities as compared to the assessee-company. In support of this contention, assessee- company has relied on the decision in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (37 Taxmann.com 403) 5. The learned AR of the assessee also submitted that the entire revenue from the end customers is passed on to the Appellant by the AR This aspect has been accepted by the TPO in the TP order. Therefore, e AE's need to be remunerated for the marketing efforts and front ending activity done by them. No independent party would pass on the…

ITO 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Schott Glass Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1867/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Aliasgar Rampurwala-ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar -DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “केकेकेके ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1867/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AY.: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-11(2)(1)…