Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.46 seconds)

Ge Energy Parts Inc. vs Cit (International Taxation), Delhi-I on 21 December, 2018

6. As a consequence of the above, the AO came to hold that the performance of senior functionaries of associated enterprises in India was monitored, controlled and managed by foreign companies of the GE Group, with Indian AEs playing a significant part in connection with the business of the foreign companies and being indelibly connected in the global business of the GE Group. The opinion with respect to escapement of income also appears to be founded on the decision rendered by this Court in GE Energy Parts Inc. vs. CIT (International Taxation), Delhi -15. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court was concerned with the challenge to reassessment initiated against various constituents of the GE Group pertaining to AY 2001-02. The reassessment action was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal6 in terms of its judgment dated 27 January 2017 which was thereafter followed in subsequent AYs'. It is common ground that the reassessment action that formed the subject matter of that litigation emanated from a search and survey conducted in 2007 and on the basis of which assessments for AYs 2001-02 to 2008-09 came to be 5 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13256.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991

"19. We are aware that each assessment year is separate and distinct and principle of res judicata does not apply to proceedings for subsequent or other years. However, the decision on an issue or question though not binding should be followed and not ignored unless there are good and sufficient reasons to take a different view. Thus, it was/is possible for the Assessing Officer to depart from the finding or a decision in one year as it is final and conclusive only in relation to a particular year for which it is made but as observed in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), when a fundamental aspect pervading through different assessment years has been found as a fact in one way or the other, it would inappropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year particularly when the said finding has been accepted. The said principle is also based upon the rules of certainty and consistency that a decision taken after due application of mind should be followed consistently as this lead to certainty, unless there are valid and good reasons for deviating and not accepting the earlier decision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1110 - R B Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next