BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Section 44Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi21Mumbai5Kolkata4Bangalore1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 928Section 234B8Section 44D4Permanent Establishment4Double Taxation/DTAA4Section 120(4)(b)3Section 143(3)2Section 1272

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION vs. ACIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1282/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

44D of the Act clearly provides that for the purpose of computation of income by way of Royalty, FIS, etc., assessee is not entitled to any deduction. Once the domestic law prohibits allowing any deduction for the purpose of calculating ‘fees for technical services/fees for included services’, then, the same is not an allowable deduction and, therefore, the Assessing Officer

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 381/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

44D of the Act clearly provides that for the purpose of computation of income by way of Royalty, FIS, etc., assessee is not entitled to any deduction. Once the domestic law prohibits allowing any deduction for the purpose of calculating ‘fees for technical services/fees for included services’, then, the same is not an allowable deduction and, therefore, the Assessing Officer

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

44D of the Act clearly provides that for the purpose of computation of income by way of Royalty, FIS, etc., assessee is not entitled to any deduction. Once the domestic law prohibits allowing any deduction for the purpose of calculating ‘fees for technical services/fees for included services’, then, the same is not an allowable deduction and, therefore, the Assessing Officer

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2787/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

For Appellant: S.K. Aggarwal Advocate For AssesseeFor Respondent: Avinish Tiwari DR for Revenue
Section 234BSection 44DSection 92

44D of the Act clearly provides that for the purpose of computation of income by way of Royalty, FIS, etc., assessee is not entitled to any deduction. Once the domestic law prohibits allowing any deduction for the purpose of calculating ‘fees for technical services/fees for included services’, then, the same is not an allowable deduction and, therefore, the Assessing Officer

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question