PCIT v. Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd.

406 ITR 375High Court2018#12805 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CASection 144C(10)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 10(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ca(3)section 144c(5)directions of the drppermanent establishmenttransfer pricing adjustmentsection 92casection 92csection 144cfinal assessment ordersection 92draft assessment ordersection 144c(13)

Judgments citing PCIT v. Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd.

WTS ENERGY DMCC,DUBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2025[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

…ssee has 5 PE in India. Thus, the AO has gone beyond the draft Assessment Order which is not permissible. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision rendering in the case of the PCIT vs. WOCO Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd., 406 ITR 375 (Guj.). 4. Per contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal representing the department vehemently supporting the impugned assessment order submits that the assessee is having service PE in India. The assessee is not only supplying manpower but is also maintaining and supervising activities carried out by the manpower supplied by the assessee. The ld. DR referred…

KUSHAL MITTAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

…ssee has 5 PE in India. Thus, the AO has gone beyond the draft Assessment Order which is not permissible. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision rendering in the case of the PCIT vs. WOCO Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd., 406 ITR 375 (Guj.). 4. Per contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal representing the department vehemently supporting the impugned assessment order submits that the assessee is having service PE in India. The assessee is not only supplying manpower but is also maintaining and supervising activities carried out by the manpower supplied by the assessee. The ld. DR referred…

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…o object regarding any variation of his income before the DRP since the AO has passed the final assessment order based on the adjustment made by the TPO on the directions of the DRP. Placing reliance on PCIT v. Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd. 406 ITR 375, it was submitted that the machinery u/s 144C was a complete and exhaustive one and it does not give any room for the DRP to remand or set aside any matter to the TPO or the AO. Numerous decisions were cited in support of the proposition that a final assessment order passed in violation of the mandatory requirements of section 144C would vitiate…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2577/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumaramerican Express (India) Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (1), Metropolitan Saket, New Delhi. 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaca8163F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle 1(1) Vs American Express (India) Private Room No.392, C.R. Building, Ltd., I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…not made in the draft assessment order and same cannot be included in the final assessment order. In this regard, reliance is placed on order passed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 375 wherein this principle was laid down and further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No.34962/2017 dated 24.11.2017. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the adjustment for purchase of fixed assets has been clearly mentioned in words by referring to it and he pleaded that the matter may be remanded to DRP to consider the issue. 7.…

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1973/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumaramerican Express (India) Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (1), Metropolitan Saket, New Delhi. 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaca8163F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle 1(1) Vs American Express (India) Private Room No.392, C.R. Building, Ltd., I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…not made in the draft assessment order and same cannot be included in the final assessment order. In this regard, reliance is placed on order passed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 375 wherein this principle was laid down and further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No.34962/2017 dated 24.11.2017. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the adjustment for purchase of fixed assets has been clearly mentioned in words by referring to it and he pleaded that the matter may be remanded to DRP to consider the issue. 7.…

M/S GREATSHIP (INDIA) LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM.OF INCOME TAX 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2422/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Greatship (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., C/O, Kalyaniwalla Of Income Tax -5(1)(1) Mistry Llp, Esplanade Room No. 568, Aayakar House, 29, Hazarimal Bhavan, M.K. Road, Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Asif Karmali
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 928Section 92C

…f Hon’ble High P a g e | 14 M/s Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 5(1)(1) Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sanmina SCI India (P) Ltd. (398 ITR 645) Madras HC) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Woco Motherson Advances Rubber Technologies Ltd. (406 ITR 375) (Gujarat HC) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Comnet System & Services Ltd. (305 ITR 409) (SC). 16. Heard both the sides on this issue and we find that AO has neither made any discussion nor proposed any addition in the draft assessm…

ESSAR INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…ng Officer cannot make a disallowance which was not made in the draft order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act. In this regard, the learned AR relied on the following decisions of Tata Motors Ltd. vs. DCIT (105 taxmann.com 7) and PCIT vs. Woco Motherson (406 ITR 375).The learned AR, without prejudice to the above, also submitted that transfer pricing adjustment made under section 92CA of the Act cannot be added while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act as the Explanation - 1 to section 115JB does not provide for it. In support of his arguments, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tri…

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8926/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Gulati
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…d to the adjustment of book profit, the Assessing Officer cannot do so in the final assessment order. In support, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) PCIT v/s Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd., [2018] 406 ITR 375 (Guj.); ii) CIT v/s Sanmina SCI India Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 297 CTR 491 (Mad.); and iii) Piramal Enterprises v/s ACIT, ITA no.5471/Mum./2017, dated 30.07.2018. 46. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, no adjustment to the book profit can be made in respect of provision of wealth tax since th…

PCIT v. Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Ltd. (406 ITR 375) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax